- (1.) This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution brought by five persons of village Farmana, Tehsil Rohtak, for impugning the notice, dated 25th April, 1969 (Annexure 'B') and the order, dated 9th June, 1969 (Annexure 'C'), purporting to have been passed under Sections 3 and 4 of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953 (hereinafter called 'the Act') by the competent authority (District Magistrate, Rohtak).
(2.) The undisputed facts are that on April 25, 1969, the District Magistrate, Rohtak, issued notice under Section 3(1) of the Act to Mauji Ram petitioner that his land in Rectangle No. 6, Killa No. 19, measuring 0.8 acres in the revenue estate of Mauzama Nagar, was needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose, viz., for the construction of Farmana Link Drain, being a purpose of the State. Mauji Ram petitioner was consequently called upon by that notice (Annexure B) to show cause why his aforesaid property be not requisitioned for the said purpose. On receipt of the above notice, an objection petition signed by Ram Chander petitioner on behalf of himself and also on behalf of other petitioners, was filed before the District Magistrate (Respondent 2), pleading that the land should not be requisitioned. Respondent 2 dismissed those objections without giving an opportunity of being heard to the objectors, and finally passed the order, dated 19th June, 1969 (Annexure 'C') requisitioning their land. This order was served on the petitioners by the Patwari at the close of June, 1969.
(3.) The notice, dated 25th April, 1969 (Annexure 'B') and the final order, dated 19th June, 1969 (Annexure 'C'), are being challenged as illegal and void on various grounds, out of which the following only have been pressed at the time of arguments :- (a) (i) That under the Act, property can be acquired only for a temporary purpose or a temporary need as distinguished from a need for permanent acquisition; that the construction of the Farmana Link Drain was a permanent purpose. (ii) That under the Act action can be taken only in respect of property and for a purpose where it is possible to restore the property after the completion of the purpose cessation of necessity to the owner under Section 6 of the Act in its original condition without impairing its utility. Since this could not be done in respect of land where a drain has been dug, action could not be taken for this purpose in respect of the petitioners' land under the Act. (iii) That the proceedings under the Act have been illegally taken for expropriating the petitioners with the ulterior motive of avoiding payment of compensation in respect thereof at the prevailing market rate, which was obligatory under the Land Acquisition Act, and as such, a fraud has been perpetrated on the Act. (b) The construction of this drain is neither a public nor a purpose of the State. (c) The competent authority did not give any opportunity to the petitioners being heard either in person or by pleader, in respect of their objections.;