M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the prayer made by the petitioner is for issuance of a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to vacate and deliver vacant and physical possession of land measuring 1 kanal 13 marla comprised, in killa No. 24, Khasra No. 39, Khatoni No. 346, Khewat No. 163 situated in village Maste Ke, Hadbast No. 36, Tehsil and District Ferozepure. In the alternative a further prayer has been made directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to acquire the said land and pay compensation for the same to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 being its owner.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are owner of the land measuring 6 kanal 13 marla comprised in killa 24, Khasra No. 39, Khatoni No. 346, khewat No. 163, situated in village Maste Ke Hadbast No. 36, Tehsil and District Ferozepur and out of the said Commandant 7th Battalion BSF -respondent No. 2 has forcibly occupied the land measuring 1 kanal 13 marla by constructing a chowki therein since 2.11.1989. The petitioner also got demarcated the land from the revenue authorities and a Rapat Roznamcha bearing No. 112, dated 2.11.1989, has been duly recorded, which shows the possession of respondent No. 2 over the land measuring 1 kanal 13 marlas. Thereafter petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 being the owner have approached respondent Nos. 1 to 4 which include Deputy Commissioner -respondent No. 3 either to acquire the land which is in possession of respondent No. 2 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and to pay compensation or to vacate the same but the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other. They are merely giving oral assurances that the land would be will acquired. A representation in this behalf was also made on 10.1.1990 (Annexure P.4). It is averred in the petition that possession of respondent No. 2 on the land in question is unauthorised. The petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 being the owner are being deprived from utilising the land in question from cultivation and they are suffering financial loss. In order to acquire the land in question, the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Land Acquisition Officer, Ferozepur, respondent No. 4, called the petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in his office on 29.4.1994 where their statements were recorded to the effect that they have no objection if the land is acquired by respondent No. 2 in accordance with law and they are awarded compensation for the same. Despite repeated requests of the petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are not taking any action and therefore the petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were compelled to submit a legal notice on 23.4.1996 (Annexure P.5). Even then no action has been taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 on the legal notice dated 23.4.1996. After prolonged correspondence, respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 3.6.2003 directed respondent No. 4 to proceed under the Act. Respondent No. 3 also informed respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 10.6.2003 to pursue the matter and accordingly respondent No. 2 requested respondent No. 3 to take steps for publication of gazette notification under Section 6 of the Act. After hearing objections raised by the land owner i.e. petitioner and respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have remained in touch with the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 but every time they have been giving assurance that they are going to launch proceedings for acquisition but neither their land has been acquired nor any compensation has been paid. Again on 10.2.2006 (Annexure P.7) petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submitted a representation to the respondents with the prayer either to acquire the land and pay the compensation for the same or to deliver possession of the land in question to them so that they may utilise the same for their livelihood but no action has been taken on that representation, Feeling aggrieved by the non action on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have approached this Court. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the broad facts that the land measuring 1 kanal 13 marlas is in possession of Border Out Post Basti Ram Lal have not been denied in para 3. The demarcation report of the Patwari dated 2.11.1989 has also been admitted. However, reference has been made to the efforts made by respondent No. 4 for acquiring this land since 1993 when notification dated 14.10.1993 under Section 4 of the Act is stated to have been issued (Annexure R2/1). Thereafter draft notification under Section 6 of the Act was also sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur -respondent No. 3 and on 3.2.1995 the same was sent for notification in the official gazette. It is claimed that Deputy Commissioner -respondent No. 3 issued reminder to the Deputy Secretary Government Punjab on 25.5.1995, 12.7.1995 and 1.9.1996 (Annexure R2/17 to R2/9). It has been asserted in second part of para 4 that further clarification was sought from the Deputy Commissioner -respondent No. 3 by the State of Punjab on 12.9.1996 drawing attention of respondent No. 3 to letter dated 25.3.1996. Again some effort was made for acquisition of land. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 9.9.2002 and prolong correspondence relating to acquisition of land in question have been placed on record as Annexures R/2/28 to R/2/63. It is claimed that respondent No. 2 has been religiously trying to acquire the land yet it is conceded that it has not been able to acquire the same till date. A reference to various correspondence for expeditious acquisition of land has been made in the concluding portion of para 4 of the written statement. The respondents have also put forward the excuse of security of the State.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have perused the record with their assistance. Having heard the learned Counsel few facts which become clear are that the petitioner alongwith respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are the owners of the land and that the land is in forcible possession of respondent No. 2 since 2.11.1989. The owners of the land including the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have moved from pillar to post yet neither their land has been acquired nor they have been given back the possession. Mr. Suveer Sehgal, learned State counsel has expressed the inability of the State of Punjab to acquire the land while appearing for respondent No. 3. He has stated that the land could be acquired by respondent No. 2 itself under the provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for brevity, 'the 1952 Act'). There is no commitment made by respondent No. 2 on behalf of the Union of India undertaking that the land would be acquired under the 1952 Act and compensation would be paid to the owners within specified time. We are amazed that the rights of citizens to have been suppressed in such an arbitrary manner. In the present case the State is acting through respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in an autocratic manner. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.;