SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

on behalf of the appellants. He then submitted that the Advisor A to the Administrator is equivalent to the Chief Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner and the Administrator of a Union Territory are of coordinate rank. Learned senior counsel then argued that the acquisition of the appellants' land cannot be quashed on the ground that the purpose specified in B Notifications dated 26.6.2006 and 2.8.2006 was not a public purpose or that the same was vague. He submitted that the appellants cannot make a complaint on this score because they had filed detailed objections under Section 5A(1), which were duly considered by the LAO. Dr. Dhawan emphasised c that the declaration issued under Section 6(1) is in consonance with the language of the statute and argued that the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to quash Notifications dated 28.2.2007 on the ground that in the first part thereof the satisfaction of the appropriate Govemment has not been D recorded. Learned senior counsel further argued that the existence of a master plan or lay-out plan is not sine qua non for the acquisition of land because the purposes specified in Section 4(1) notification were identified public purposes. He pointed out that substantial portion of the land acquired for E Phase I and Phase II of IT Park had been allotted to IT industries and the remaining portion was used for roads, parks, etc., and argued that the cancellation of allotment of three IT companies cannot lead to an inference that the acquired land has not been utilised for development of IT Park. In the end, Dr. Dhawan argued that the findings recorded by the Special F Audit Team and the One-Man Committee cannot be made basis for quashing the acquisition of land for Phase Ill of IT Park. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel relied upon the judgments in Somawanti v. State of Punjab (supra), Ganga Bishnu Swaika v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society (supra), G Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (supra), Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (supra), State of T.N. v. L. Krishnan (supra) and Ajay Krishan Shinghal v. Union of India (supra). H

1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

34Copy pinpoint34. We have given serious thought to the respective arguments and carefully scrutinized the record of these petitions as also the files made available by Shri Sudhir Walia, learned counsel for the Chandigarh Administration.

35Copy pinpoint35. We shall first consider the question whether the Advisor to the Administrator had the jurisdiction to approve the acquisition of the appellants' land. For deciding this question, it will be useful to notice the provisions of Article 239 of the Constitution (amended and unamended) and the notifications issued under that Article. The same read as under: c "Prior to 1-11-56 "Afle( 1-11-56

Art. 239. Administration of States in Part C of the First Schedule. - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Part a 0 State specified in Part C of the First Schedule shall be administered by the President acting to such extent as he thinks fit, though a Chief Commissioner or a Lieutenant Governor to be appointed by him or though the Government of a neighbouring State.

E Provided that the President shall not act thorough the Government of a neighbouring State save after -

(a) consulting the Government concerned and

F (b) ascertaining in such manner as the President considers most appropriate the views of the people of the State to be so administered. (2) In this article, references to a State shall include references to a part of a State." G

239. Administration of Union territories. - (1) Save as otherwise provided by Parliament by law, every Union territory shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through an administrator appointed by him with H such designation as he may specify.

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1135 UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Part VI, the A President may appoint the Governor of a State as the administrator of an adjoining Union territory, and where a Governor is so appointed, he shall exercise his functions as such Administrator independently of his Council of Ministers. B Substituted by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956."

"MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

New Delhi, the 1st November, 1966 c S.0.3269.- Whereas under section 4 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (31 of 1966), the territories specified therein form the Union territory of Chandigarh on and from the 1st day of November, 1966. D And whereas under section 88 of the said Act, the provisions of Part II of the said Act shall not be deemed to have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the 1st day of November, 1966, extends or applies, and territorial references in any E such law to the State of Punjab shall, until otherwise provided by a competent legislature or other competent authority, be construed as meaning the territories within that State immediately before the said day; F And whereas the powers exercisable by the State Government under any such law as aforesaid are now exercisable by the Central Government;

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause (1) of article 239 of the Constitution, and all other powers enabling him in G this behalf, the President hereby directs that, subject to his control and until further orders, the Administrator of the Union territory of Chandigarh shall, in relation to the said territory, exercise and discharge, with effect from the 1st H

1136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A day of November, 1966, the powers and functions of the State Government under any such law.

[No.13/V66-CHD]"

"No.5/1/66-CHD B GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-II, the 1st November, 1966.

NOTIFICATION c G.S.R.1675-ln exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 239 of the Constitution, the President hereby directs that all orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of Chief Commissioner of Union Territory of Chandigarh shall be authenticated by the D signature of a Secretary/a Deputy Secretary an Under Secretary, an Assistant Secretary in any of the departments of the Chandigarh Administration. ·

Sd/- E A.D.Pande, JOINT SECRETARY"

"NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 8 October, 1968, F S.O. 3612 - In pursuance of clause (1) of article 239 of the Constitution, and in partial modification of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs No.S.O. 3269 dated the 1st November, G 1966, in so far as it relates to the exercise of powers and functions under the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (1 of 1894) by the Administrator of the Union territorv of Chandigarh. the President hereby directs that, subject to his control and until further orders, the powers and functions of the H

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1137 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] appropriate Government under - A (i) the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), except those of the Central Government under the provisos to sub- section (1) of section 55, and

(ii) the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963, 8

shall also be exercised and discharged by the Administrator of the Union territory of Chandigarh, within the said Union territory. [No.F.2/8/68-UTL] C Sd/- (K.R. Prabhu) Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India."

"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA D MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHl-1, the 1st January, 1970

11th Pausa, 1891 E NOTIFICATION

S.O. 157 - In pursuance of clause (1) of article 239 of the Constitution, and in partial modification of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs F No.S.O. 3371, dated the 1st November, 1966, in so far as it relates to the exercise of powers and functions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(1 of 1894) by the Administrator of the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh, and in supersession of the notifications of the Government of India G in the Ministry of External Affairs No. S.O. 3165, dated the 5th November, 1963, and in the Ministry of Home Affairs Nos. S.O. 190, dated the 8th January, 1964, S.O. 3953, dated the 21st December, 1966 and S.O. 3612, dated the 8th October, 1968, the President hereby directs that, H

1138 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A subject his control and until further orders, the powers and functions of the appropriate Government under-

(i) the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894), except those of the Central Government under the provisos to sub-section (1) of section 55, and B (ii) the Land Acquisition. (Companies) Rules, 1963,

shall also be exercised and discharged by the Administrator of every Union territory (whether known as c the Administrator, Chief Commissioner or the Lieutenant Governor), within the respective Union territories.

(No.F.2/8/68-UTL)

Sd/- D (P.N. KAUL) DEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA" "BHARAT SARKAR I GOVERNMENT OF INDIA GRIH MANTRALAYA I MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS E New Delhi, the 14th Aug, 89

NOTIFICATION

F S.0. 642(E) In pursuance of clause (1) of Article 239 of the Constitution and in suppression of all previous notifications relating to the exercise of power; and functions under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) by the Administrator of various Union Territories except as G respects things done or omitted to be done before such suppression, the president hereby directs that subject to his control and until further orders, the powers and functions of the appropriate government in relation to a Union Territory shall also be exercised and discharged by the H

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. V.1139 UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] administrator of such Union Territory (Whether known as A Administrator, Chief Commissioner or lieutenant governor) within the respective union territory under:-

(i) the land acquisition Act 1894 (1 of 1894) except the functions exercisable by the Central Government under the provision to sub-section (1) of section 55 of the said Act; 8 and

(ii) the land acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963.

NO.U-11030/1/89-UTU c Sd/- (Ashok Nath) Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India"

36Copy pinpoint36. Notification dated 25.2.1988 issued under Section 3(1) of the 1987 Act as also Notifications dated 2.6.1984, D 30.5.1985, 27 .11.1999, 8.5.2003, 1.10.2004, 4.11.2004 and 17.11.2004 on which reliance was placed by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan are reproduced below: "CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION E HOME DEPARTMENT Notification The 25th February. 1988.

No. LD-88/1302.-ln. exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Chandigarh (Delegation of Powers) Act, 1987 (No. 2 of 1988), the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is pleased to direct that any power, authority or jurisdiction or any duty which the Administrator may exercise or discharge by or under the provisions of any law, rules or regulations as are applicable in the Union Territory, Chandigarh on the date of this notification shall be exercised or discharged by the Adviser to the Administrator except in cases or class of cases (as men-tioned in the Schedule annexed hereto) which shall H

1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A be submitted to the Administrator for final orders:-

SCHEDULE

(i) Proposals regarding suspension, remission of sentences under section 432 of the Code of B Criminal Procedure.

(ii) Cases raising question of policy and cases of administrative importance.

(iii) Cases which effect or are likely to effect peace and c tranquility of the State.

(iv) Cases which effect the relations of Union Territory Administration with other State Governments, the Supreme Court or the High Court. D (v) Constitution of Advisory Boards under the various laws providing for detention of persons without trial.

(vi) Proposals for the prosecution, dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of any Class-I Officer. E (vii) Proposals for the appointment of any Class-I Officer.

(viii) Proposals regarding framing of rules of Class-I Officers including amendment of these rules. F (ix) Cases relating to the application of Acts of Parliament or extension of any State Act under section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act to the Union Territory, Chandigarh. G (x) Cases where modification of the orders passed by the predecessors of the present Administrator are involved.

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1141 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

(xi) Proposals for the creation or abolition of Class-I A posts. (xii) Such other cases or class of cases as the Administrator may consider necessary or such other cases where his orders are necessarily to be B he obtained under a Statute, for instance granting sanction to the launching of prosecution under section 196 Cr PC or any other Criminal Law.

By order and in the name of Administrator C (Sd.) P. K. VERMA, Home Secretary, · Chandigarh Administration." D "No.U.14020/17/84 - UTS Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi-110001, the 2nd June, 1984. E NOTIFICATION Consequent upon the concurrent appointment of Shri B.D. Pande, Governor of Punjab, as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, Shri K. Banarji, IAS (UT : F 1954 112), Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh will be redesignated as Adviser to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. (Baleshwar Rai) Deputy Secretary to the Government of India." G "(FOR PUBLICATION IN THE GAZETIE OF INDIA PART I SECTION 2) H

1142 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A No.U.14020/17/84 - UTS. Pt. Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs

New Delhi-110001, the 30th May, 1985. 8 NOTIFICATION

Consequent upon the concurrent appointment of Shri Arjun Singh, Governor of Punjab, as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, Shri K. Banarji, IAS (UT: 1954 c 1/2), Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh will be redesignated as Adviser to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh.

(Baleshwar Rai) D Director." "CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

NOTIFICATION E The 27 November, 1999

No.1015-GOl-IH (4)-99/22972

Consequent upon the appointment of Lieutenant- F General (Reid.) Jack Frederick Ralph Jacob, PVSM, Governor of Punjab as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh in addition to his duties as Governor of Punjab vide order of the President of India, dated the 19th November, 1999 conveyed vide Rashtrapati Bhawan G communication bearing No.F.29-CA(l)/99, dated the 19th November, 1999, Lieutenant General (retd.) Jack Frederick Ralph Jacob, PVSM has assumed charge as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the forenoon of 27th November, 1999. H

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1143 UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] N.K. Jain A Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration." "CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL B NOTIFICATION

The 8th May, 2003

No.IH (4)-2003/8264 c Consequent upon the appointment of Shri Justice Om Prakash Verma (Retd.), Governor of Punjab as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh in addition to his duties as Governor of Punjab vide order of the President of India, dated the 2nd May, 2003, conveyed D vide Rashtrapati Bhawan communication bearing No.F.31- CA(l)/2003, dated the 2nd May, 2003. Justice Om Prakash Verma (Retd.) has assumed charge as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the forenoon of 8th May, 2003. E

R.S. Gujral, Home Secretary] Chandigarh Administration."

"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION F DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

NOTIFICATION September, 2004 G 1st Oct. 2004

No.IH (4)-2004/18018 Consequent upon the appointment of Dr. Akhlaq-ur- H

1144 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A Rahman Kidwai, Governor of Punjab as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh in addition to his duties as Governor of Punjab vide order of the President of India, dated the 28th September, 2004 conveyed vide Rashtrapati Bhawan communication bearing No.F.31- B CA(l)/2004, dated the 28th September, 2004, Dr. Akhlaq- ur-Rahman Kidwai has assumed charge as Administr;itor of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the afternoon of 30th September, 2004.

R.S. Gujral, c Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration.•

"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL D NOTIFICATION 4.11.2004

No.22/S/39/IH (4)-2004/20197 E Consequent upon the appointment of Dr. Akhlaq-ur- Rahman Kid~ai, Governor of Punjab as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh in addition to his duties as Governor of Punjab vide order of the President of India, dated the 30th October, 2004 conveyed vide Rashtrapati F Bhawan communication bearing No.F.31-CA(l)/2004, dated the 30th October, 2004, Dr. Akhlaq-ur-Rahman Kidwai has assumed charge as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the forenoon of the 3rd November, 2004. G R. S. Gujral, Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration."

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1145 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION A DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL NOTIFICATION

The 17th November, 2004 B No.22/S/39/IH (4)-2004/20890

Consequent upon the appointment of General (Reid.) S. F. Rodrigues, PVSM, VSM, Governor of Punjab as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh in c addition to his duties as Governor of Punjab vide order of the President of India, dated the 8th November, 2004, conveyed vide Rashtrapati Bhawan communication bearing No.F.31-CA(l)/2004, dated the 8th November, 2004, General (Reid.) S. F. Rodrigues, PVSM, VSM, has assumed charge as Administrator of the Union Territory of D Chandigarh on the afternoon of 18th November, 2004. R. S. Gujral, Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration." E

37Copy pinpoint37. We may also take cognizance of Notifications dated 12.1.2001, 15.1.2003, 11.9.2003, 21.11.2003, 1.1.2007 by which different officers of Indian Administrative Service were appointed/given charge of the post of Adviser, Union Territory, F Chandigarh. The same read as under: "CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL NOTIFICATION G

Dated, the 12th January, 2001.

No.59(GOl)-IH (4)-2001/786

Consequent upon het appointment as Adviser to the H

1146 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 12 S.C.R.

A Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Ms. Neeru Nanda, IAS (AGMU:71) took over charge of the said post with effect from 12.01.2001 (forenoon) from Smt. Vineeta Rai, IAS (AGMU:68).

B R.S. Gujral, Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration."

"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL c NOTIFICATION

Dated, the 15.1.2003. No.IH (4)-2002/913 D Consequent upon his appointment as Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sh. Virendra Singh, IAS (AGMU:1969) took over charge of the said post with effect from the forenoon of 8.1.2003. E R.S. Gujral, Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration."

"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION F DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL

ORDER In pursuance of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi's order bearing Ends!. No. G 14020/ 9/2002-UTS.I, dated the 10th September, 2003, the Administrator, Union Territory. Chandigarh is pleased to relieve Sh. Virendra Singh, IAS (AGMU:69), of the charge of Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, with immediate effect. H

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1147 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

2. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders of the Government A of India dated the 10th September, 2003, the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, is further pleased to entrust the current charge of the post of Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh to Sh. R.S. Gujral, IAS (HY:76), Home Secretary, Chandigarh B Administration, in addition to his own duties, until further orders.

Chandigarh, dated (By order and in the name The 11th September, 2003 of Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh) c Ashok Sangwan, Joint Secretary Personnel, Chandigarh Administration" D "CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL NOTIFICATION Dated, the 21.11.2003. E No.IH (4)-2003/21655

Consequent upon his appointment as Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sh. Lalit Sharma, IAS (AGMU:1971) has taken over the charge of F the said post with effect from the afternoon of 21.11.2003, relieving Sh. R.S. Gujral, IAS (HY-1976), Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, of this additional charge. R.S. Gujral, G Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration."

"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL H

1148 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A NOTIFICATION

Dated, the 01.01.07

No.22/2/47-IH (4)-2007/19619

B Consequent upon his appointment as Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, Sh. Pradip Mehra, IAS (AGMU:1975) assumed the charge of the said post with effect from the afternoon of 30.09.2007.

Krishna Mohan, c Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration."

38Copy pinpoint38. The unamended Article 239 envisaged administration of the States specified in Part C of the First Schedule of the D Constitution by the President through a Chief Commissioner or a Lieutenant Governor to be appointed by him or through the Government of a neighbouring State. This was subject to other provisions of Part VIII of the Constitution. As against this, amended Article 239 lays down that subject to any law enacted E by Parliament every Union Territory shall be administered by the President acting through an Administrator appointed by him with such designation as he may specify. In terms of Clause (2) of Article 239 (amended), the President can appoint the Governor of a State as an Administrator of an adjoining Union F territory and on his appointment, the Governor is required to exercise his function as an Administrator independently of his Council of Ministers. The difference in the language of the unamended and amended Article 239 makes it clear that prior to 1.11.1956, the President could administer Part C State G through a Chief Commissioner or a Lieutenant Governor, but, after the amendment, every Union Territory is required to be administered by the President through an Administrator appointed by him with such designation as he may specify. In terms of Clause 2 of Article 239 (amended), the President is empowered to appoint the Governor of State as the

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1149 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] Administrator to an adjoining Union Territory and once appointed, the Governor, in his capacity as Administrator, has to act independently of the Council of Ministers of the State of which he is the Governor.

39Copy pinpoint39. A reading of the Notification issued on 1.11.1966 shows that in exercise of the power vested in him under Article B 239(1), the President directed that the Administrator shall exercise the power and discharge the functions of the State Government under the laws which were in force immediately before formation of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. This was subject to the President's own control and until further orders. C By another notification issued on the same day, the President directed that all orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Chief Commissioner of Union Territory of Chandigarh shall be authenticated by the signatures of the specified officers. These notifications clearly brought out the distinction between the position of the Administrator and the Chief Commissioner insofar as the Union Territory of Chandigarh was concerned. Subsequently, the President appointed the Governor of Punjab as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and separate notifications were issued for appointment of Adviser to the Administrator. The officers appointed as Adviser are invariably members of the Indian Administrative Service.

40Copy pinpoint40. After about 2 years of the issuance of the first notification under Article 239(1) of the Constitution, by which the powers and functions exercisable by the State Government under various laws were generally entrusted to the Administrator, Notification dated 8.10.1968 was issued and the earlier notification was modified insofar as it related to the exercise of powers and functions by the Administrator under the Act and the President directed that subject to his control and until further orders, the powers and functions of 'the appropriate Government' shall also be exercised and discharged by the Administrator. Notification dated 8.10.1968 was superseded H

1150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A by Notification dated 1.1.1970 and the President directed that subject to his control and until further orders, the powers and functions of 'the appropriate Government' shall also be exercised and discharged by the Administrator of every Union Territory whether known as the Administrator, the Chief B Commissioner or the Lieutenant Governor. The last notification in the series was issued on 14.8.1989 superseding all previous Notifications. The language of that notification is identical to the language of Notification dated 1.1.1970.

41Copy pinpoint41. There is marked distinction in the language of the notifications issued under Article 239(1) of the Constitution. By notification dated 1.11.1966, the President generally delegated the powers and functions of the State Government under various laws in force immediately before 1.11.1966 to the Administrator. By all other notifications, the power exercisable by 'the appropriate Government' under the Act and the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 were delegated to the Administrator. It is not too difficult to fathom the reasons for this departure from notification dated 1.11.1966. The Council of Ministers whose advice constitutes the foundation of the decision taken by the President was very much conscious of the fact that compulsory acquisition of land, though sanctioned by the provision of the Act not only impacts lives and livelihood of the farmers and other small landholders, but also adversely affect the agricultural and environment and ecology of the area. F Therefore, with a view to avoid any possibility of misuse of power by the executive authorities, it has been repeatedly ordained that powers and functions vested in 'the appropriate Government' under the Act and the 1963 Rules shall be exercised only by the Administrator. The use of the expression G 'shall also be exercised and discharged' in Notifications dated 8.10.1968, 1.1.1970 and 14.8.1989 is a clear pointer in this direction. The seriousness with which the Central Government has viewed such type of acquisition is also reflected from the decision taken by the Home Minister on 23.9.2010 in the H

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1151 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

context of the report of the Special Auditor and the One-Man A Committee. Thus, the acquisition of land for and on behalf of Union Territories must be sanctioned by the Administrator of the particular Union Territory and no other officer is competent to exercise the power vested in 'the appropriate Government' under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. B

42Copy pinpoint42. We may now advert to Notification dated 25.2.1988 issued under Section 3(1) of the 1987 Act, vide which the Administrator directed that any power, authority or jurisdiction or any duty which he C!>uld exercise or discharge by or under the provisions of any law, rules or regulations as applicable to C the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall be exercised or discharged by the Adviser except in cases or class of cases enumerated in the Schedule. There is nothing in the language of Section 3(1) of the 1987 Act from which it can be inferred that the Administrator can delegate the power exercisable by D 'the appropriate Government' under the Act which was specifically entrusted to him by the President under Article 239(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, notification dated 25.2.1988 cannot be relied upon for contending that the Administrator had delegated the power of 'the appropriate E Government' to the Adviser.

43Copy pinpoint43. The issue deserves to be considered from another angle. While delegating the power, authority or jurisdiction vested in him by or under any law, rules or regulations as F applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, the Administrator had used the expression 'on the date of this notification'. This necessarily implies that the power of 'the appropriate Government' conferred upon or entrusted to the Administrator by the President under Article 239(1) after G 25.2.1988 were not delegated to the Adviser. It is also apposite to note that Notification dated 14.8.1,989 was issued under Article 239(1) in supersession of all previous notifications relating to the exercise of power and functions under the Act by the Administrators of various Union Territories. Therefore, H

1152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A even if it is assumed that vide Notification dated 25.2.1988 the Administrator had authorised the Adviser to exercise the power of 'the appropriate Government' under the Act, after the issuance of Notification dated 14.8.1989, the said delegation will be deemed to have ceased insofar as the exercise of power of 'the appropriate Government' under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder is concerned and in the absence of fresh delegation by the Administrator, the Adviser could not have exercised the power of the appropriate Government and sanctioned the acquisition of land for the purposes specified in Notifications dated 26.6.2006 and 2.8.2006 nor could he symbolically accept the recommendations of the LAO and record his satisfaction on the issue of need of land for the specified public purposes.

44Copy pinpoint44. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the D Adviser to the Administrator was not competent to accord approval to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings or take decision on the reports submitted by the LAO under Section 5-A (2) of the Act and record his satisfaction that the land was needed for the specified public purpose. E

45Copy pinpoint45. The next question which requires determination is whether the reports prepared by the LAO under Section 5A(2) were vitiated due to non-consideration of the objections filed by the landowners and the same could not be made basis for deciding whether the land was really needed for the particular public purpose. A cursory reading of the reports of the LAO may give an impression that he had applied mind to the objections filed under Section 5A(1) and assigned reasons for not entertaining the same, but a careful analysis thereof leaves no doubt that the officer concerned had not at all applied mind to the objections of the landowners and merely created a facade of doing so. In the opening paragraph under the heading "Observations", the LAO recorded that he had seen the revenue records and conducted spot inspection. He then reproduced the Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in the Bill H

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1153 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

which led to the enactment of the Punjab New Capital A (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 and proceed to extract some portion of reply dated 31.7.2006 sent by the Administrator to Surinder Singh Brar.

46Copy pinpoint46. In the context of the statement contained in the first line 8 of the paragraph titled "Observations'', we repeatedly asked Shri Sudhir Walia, learned counsel assisting Dr. Rajiv Dhawan to show as to when the LAO had summoned the revenue records and when he had conducted spot inspection but the learned counsel could not produce any document to substantiate the statement contained in the two reports of the C LAO. This leads to an inference that, in both the reports, the LAO had made a misleading and false statement about his having seen the revenue records and conducted spot inspection. That apart, the reports do not contain any iota of consideration of the objections filed by the landowners. Mere D reproduction of the substance of the objections cannot be equated with objective consideration thereof in the light of the submission made by the objectors during the course of hearing. Thus, the violation of the mandate of Section 5A(2) is writ large . on the face of the reports prepared by the LAO. E

47Copy pinpoint47. The reason why the LAO did not apply his mind to the objections filed by the appellants and other landowners is obvious. He was a minion in the hierarchy of the administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and could not have even thought of making recommendations contrary lo what was contained in the letter sent by the Administrator to Surinder Singh Brar. If he had shown the courage of acting independently and made recommendation against the acquisition of land, he would have surely been shifted from that post and his career would have been jeopardized. In the system of governance which we have today, junior officers in the administration cannot even think of, what to say of, acting against the wishes/dictates of their superiors. One who violates this unwritten code of conduct does so at his own peril and is H

1154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.'

A described as a foolhardy. Even those constituting higher strata of services follow the path of least resistance and find it most convenient to tow the line of their superiors. Therefore, the LAO cannot be blamed for having acted as an obedient subordinate of the superior authorities, including the Administrator. B However, that cannot be a legitimate ground to approve the reports prepared by him without even a semblance of consideration of the objections filed by the appellants and other landowners and we have no hesitation to hold that the LAO failed to discharge the statutory duty cast upon him to prepare c a report after objectively considering the objections filed under Section 5A(1) and submissions made by the objectors during the course of personal hearing.

48Copy pinpoint48. The Special Secretary, Finance and the Adviser to the Administrator also failed to act in consonance with the mandate of Section 5A(2) read with Section 6(1 ). They could oot muster courage of expressing an independent opinion on the issue of compliance of Section 5A and need of the land for the specified public purposes. The noting recorded by the Special Secretary, Finance, which has been extracted hereinabove shows that the officer had virtually reproduced what the. Administrator had mentioned in his letter dated 31 .7.2006. The Adviser went a step further. He merely appended his signatures on the note recorded by the Special Secretary, Finance forgetting that in terms of the aforementioned two sections 'the appropri~te Government' is required to take decision after considering the report of the LAO. The least which can be said about the manner in which the Adviser approved the note prepared by the Special Secretary, Finance is that there was abject failure on the part of the concerned officer to discharge his duty despite the fact that he was entrusted with the onerous task of taking a decision on behalf of 'the appropriate Government' after considering the reports of the LAO. The casual manner in which the senior officers of the Chandigarh Administration dealt with the serious issue of the acquisition of land of citizens signifies their total lack of

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1155 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

respect for the constitutional provision contained in Article A 300A, the law enacted by Parliament, that is, the Act and interpretation thereof by the Courts. It seems that the officers were overawed by the view expressed by the Administrator and the instinct of self-preservation prompted them not to go against the wishes of the Administrator who wanted that additional land be acquired in the name of expansion of IT Park despite the fact that a substantial portion of the land acquired for Phase II had been allotted to a private developer.

49Copy pinpoint49. At this stage, it will be useful to notice the provisions of Sections 3(ee), 3(f) (as substituted by Act No.68 of 1984), 4(1), SA and 6(1). The same read as under:

"3(ee) the expression "appropriate Governmenf' means, in relation to acquisition of land for the purposes of the Union, the Central Government, and, in relation to acquisition of land for any other purposes, the State Government; 3 (f) the expression 'public purpose' includes- (i) the provision of village- sites, or the extension, planned development or improvement of existing village- sites;

(ii) the provision of land for town or rural planning;

(iii) the provision of land for planned development of land from public funds in pursuance of any scheme or policy of Government and subsequent disposal thereof in whole or in part by lease, assignment or outright sale with the object of securing further development as planned; (iv) the provision of land for a corporation owned or controlled by the State; (v) the provision of land for residential purposes to the poor or landless or to persons residing in areas affected by natural calamities, or to persons displaced or affected by H

1156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A reason of the implementation of any scheme undertaken by Government, any local authority or a corporation owned or controlled by the State;

(vi) the provision of land for carrying out any educational, housing, health or slum clearance scheme sponsored by B Government or by any authority established by Government for carrying out any such scheme, or with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority, or a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860 ), or under any corresponding law for c the time being in force in a state, or a co- operative society within the meaning of any law relating to co- operative societies for the time being in force in any State;

(vii) the provision of land for any other scheme of development sponsored by Government or with the prior approval of the appropriate Government, by a local authority; (viii) the provision of any premises or building for locating a public office, but does not include acquisition of land for companies;

4. Publication of preliminary notification and power of officers thereupon.-

F (1) Whenever it appears to the appropriate Government the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, a notification to that effect shall be published in the Official Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in that locality of which G at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality the last of the dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the notification. H

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. 1157 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

)()()( )()()( )()()( A 5A. Hearing of objections.-

(1) Any person interested in any land which has been notified under section 4, sub- section (1 ), as being needed or likely to be needed for a public purpose or for a B Company may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the notification, object to the acquisition of the land or of any land in the locality, as the case may be.

(2) Every objection under sub- section (1) shall be made c to the Collector in writing, and the Collector shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard[ in person or by any person authorized by him in this behalij or by pleader and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under section 4, sub- section (1 ), or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land, to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that Government. The decision of the appropriate Governmeni on the objections shall be final.

(3) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land were acquired under this Act.

6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose.-

(1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act, when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under section 5A, sub- section (2), that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, or for a Company, a declaration shall be made to that effect H

1158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A under the signature of a Secretary to such Government or of some officer duly authorized to certify its orders and different declarations may be made from time to time in respect of different parcels of any land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub- section (I) B irrespective of whether one report or different reports has or have been made (wherever required) under section SA, sub-section (2):

Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section c (1),-

(i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the commencement of the Land D Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or

(ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendmen~) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification:

Provided further that no such declaration shall be made unless the compensation to be awarded for such property is to be paid by a Company, or wholly or partly put of public revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a local authority. Explanation 1.-ln computing any of the periods referred to in the first proviso, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under section 4, sub-section (1 ), is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.

Explanation 2.-Where the compensation to be awarded H

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. 1159 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.] for such property is to be paid out of the funds of a A corporation owned or controlled by the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be compensation paid out of public revenues.

(2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official 8 Gazette, and in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language, and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality (the last of the date of such publication and the giving of such public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date of the publication of the declaration), and such declaration shall state the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area, and, where a plan shall have been made of the land, the place where such plan may be inspected. (3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company, E as the case may be; and, after making such declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing."

50Copy pinpoint50. Section 4(1) lays down that whenever it appears to the appropr!ate Government that land in any locality is needed or F is likely to be needed for any public purpose or for a company, then a notification to that effect is required to be published in the Official Gazette and two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality. Of these, one paper has to be in the regional language. A duty is also cast on the Collector, as defined in G Section 3(c), to cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the locality: The last date of publication and giving of public notice is treated as the date of publication of the notification. H

1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

51Copy pinpoint51. Section 5A, which embodies the most important dimension of the rules of natural justice, lays down that any person interested in any land notified under Section 4(1) may, within 30 days of publication of the notification, submit objection in writing against the proposed acquisition of land or of any land B in the locality to the Collector. The Collector is required to give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by any person authorised by him or by pleader. After hearing the objector(s) and making such further inquiry, as he may think necessary, the Collector has to make a report in respect of land c notified under Section 4(1) with his recommendations on the objections and forward the same to the Government along with the record of the proceedings held by him. The Collector can make different reports in respect of different parcels of land proposed to be acquired.

52Copy pinpoint52. Upon receipt of the Collector's report, the appropriate Government is required to take action under Section 6(1) which lays down that after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A(2), the appropriate Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose, then a E declaration to that effect is required to be made under the signatures of a Secretary to the Government or of some officer duly authorised to certify its orders. This section also envisages making of different declarations from time to time in respect of different parcels of land covered by the same notification issued under Section 5(1 ). In terms of clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 6(1 }, no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification issued under Section 4(1 ), which is published after 24-9-1989 can be made after expiry of one year from the date of publication of the notification. To put it differently, a declaration is required to be made under Section 6(1) within one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1).

53Copy pinpoint53. In terms of Section 6(2), every declaration made under H Section 6(1) is required to be published in the Official Gazette

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1161 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

and in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality in which the land proposed to be acquired is situated. Of these, at least one must be in the regional language. The Collector is also required to cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the locality. The declaration to be published under Section 6(2) must contain the district or other territorial division in which the land is situate, the purpose for which it is needed, its approximate area or a plan is made in respect of land and the place where such plan can be inspected.

54Copy pinpoint54. Section 6(3) lays down that the declaration made under C Section 6(1) shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that land is needed for a public purpose. After publication of the declaration under Section 6, the Collector is required to take order from the State Government for the acquisition of land to be carved out and measured and planned (Sections 7 and 8). D The next stage as envisaged is issue of public notice and individual notice to the persons interested in the land to file their claim for compensation. Section 11 envisages holding of an enquiry into the claim and passing of an award by the Collector who is required to take into consideration the provisions E contained in Section 23.

55Copy pinpoint55. In Nandeshwar Prasad and Anr. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (1964) 3 SCR 425, this Court observed that the right to file objections under Section 5-A is a substantial ·F right when a person's property is being threatened with acquisition. In Munshi Singh v. Union of India (1973) 2 SCC 337, the importance of the rule of hearing embodied in Section 5-A was highlighted in the following words: "Section 5-A embodies a very just and wholesome G principle that a person whose property is being or is intended to be acquired should have a proper and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that acquisition of the property belonging to that _person should not be made. We may refer to the H

1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 12 S.C.R.

A observation of this court in Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P that the right to file objections under Section 5-A is a substantial right when a person's property is being threatened with acquisition and that right cannot be taken away as if by a side wind. Sub-section (2) of Section 5-A B makes it obligatory on the Collector to give an objector an opportunity of being heard. After hearing all objections and making further inquiry he is to make a report to the appropriate Government containing his recommendation on the objections. The decision of the appropriate c Government on the objections is then final. The declaration under Section 6 has to be made after the appropriate Government is satisfied. on a consideration of the report. if any, made by the Collector under Section 5-A(2). The legislature has, therefore, made complete provisions for the persons interested to file objections against the D proposed acquisition and for the disposal of their objections." (emphasis supplied)

56Copy pinpoint56. In State of Punjab v. Gurdia/ Singh (1980) 2 SCC 471, the Court observed:

•...... it is fundamental that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter and the smaller the man the more serious the matter. Hearing him before depriving him F is both reasonable and pre-emptive of arbitrariness, and denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons."

57Copy pinpoint57. In Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius G Shapur Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627, this Court analysed Section 5-A in the following words: • ........... Section 5-A of the Act is in two parts. Upon receipt of objections, the Collector is required to make such further enquiry as he may think necessary whereupon H

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. 1163 UNION OF INDIAAND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

he must submit a report to the appropriate Government in respect of the land which is the subject-matter of notification under Section 4( 1) of the Act. The said report would also contain recommendations on the objections filed by the owner of the land. He is required to forward the records of the proceedings held by him together with the report. On receipt of such a report together with the records of the case, the Government is to render a decision thereupon. It is now well settled in view of a catena of decisions that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act need not contain any reason. ... .. . ... . c However, considerations of the objections by the owner of the land and the acceptance of the recommendations by the Government, it is trite, must precede a proper application of mind on the part of the Government. ......... . Furthermore, the State is required to apply its mfnd not 0 only on the objections filed by the owner of the land but also on the report which is submitted by the Collector upon making other and further enquiries therefor as also the recommendations made by him in that behalf. The State Government may further inquire into the matter, if any case is made out therefor, for arriving at its own satisfaction that E it is necessary to deprive a citizen of his right to property."

58Copy pinpoint58. What needs to be emphasised is that hearing required to be given under Section 5A(2) to a person who is sought to be deprived of his land and who has filed objections under F Section 5A(1) must be effective and not an empty formality. The Collector who is enjoined with the task of hearing the objectors has the freedom of making further enquiry as he may think necessary. In either eventuality, he has to make report in respect of the land notified under Section 4(1) or make different reports G in respect of different parcels of such land to the appropriate Government containing his recommendations on the objections 'and submit the same to the appropriate Government along with the record of proceedings held by him for the latter's decision. The appropriate Government is obliged to consider the report, H

1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A if any, made under Section 5A(2) and then record its satisfaction that the particular land is needed for a public purpose. This exercise culminates into making a declaration that the land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration is to be signed by a Secretary to the Government or some other officer duly aijthorised to certify its orders. The formation of opinion on the issue of need of land for a public purpose and suitability thereof is sine qua non for issue of a declaration under Section 6(1 ). Any violation of the substantive right of the landowners and/or other interested persons to file objections or denial of opportunity of personal hearing to the objector(s) vitiates the recommendations made by the Collector and the decision taken by the appropriate Government on such recommendations. The recommendations made by the Collector without duly considering the objections filed under Section 5A(1) and submissions made at the hearing given 0 under Section 5A(2) or failure of the appropriate Government to take objective decision on such objections in the light of the recommendations made by the Collector will denude the decision of the appropriate Government of statutory finality. To put it differently, the satisfaction recorded by the appropriate E Government that the particular land is needed for a public purpose and the declaration made under Section 6(1) will be devoid of legal sanctity if statutorily engrafted procedural safeguards are not adhered to by the concerned authorities or there is violation of the principles of natural justice. The cases before us are illustrative of flagrant violation of the mandate of Sections 5A(2) and 6(1). Therefore, the second question is answered in affirmative.

59Copy pinpoint59. Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it proper to deal with the two judgments relied upon by Dr. Dhawan in support of his submission that the declaration issued under Section 6(1) is conclusive and the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority cannot be subjected to judicial review. In Somawanti v. State of Punjab (supra), after analysing the relevant provisions, the majority of the Constitution

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1165 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

Bench observed: A

"The scheme of the Act is that normally the provisions of Section 5-A have to be complied with. Where, in pursuance of the provisions. objections are lodged. these objections will have to be decided by the Government. For B deciding them the Government will have before it the Collector's proceedings. It would. therefore. be clear that the declaration that a particular land is needed for a public purpose for a company is not to be made by the Government arbitrarily. but on the basis-of material placed before it by the Collector. The provision of sub-section (2) C of Section 5-A make the decision of the Government on the objections final while those of sub-section (1) of Section 6 enable the Government to arrive at its satisfaction. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 goes further and says that such a declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a company.

The Government has to be satisfied about both the elements contained in the expression "needed for a public purpose or a company". Where it is so satisfied, it is entitled to make a declaration. Once such a declaration is made sub-section (3) invests it with conclusiveness. That conclusiveness is not merely regarding the fact that the Government is satisfied but also with regard to the question that the land is needed for a public purpose or is needed for a company, as the case may be. Then again, the conclusiveness must necessarily attach not merely to the need but also to the question whether the purpose is a public purpose or what is said to be a company is a G company. There can be no "need" in the abstract. It must be a need for a "public purpose" or for a company.

The Act has empowered the Government to determine the question of the need of land for a public purpose or for a company and the jurisdiction conferred upon it to do so is H

1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A not made conditional upon the existence of a collateral or extraneous fact. It is the existence of the need for a public purpose which gives jurisdiction to the Government to make a declaration under Section 6(1) and makes it the sole judge whether there is in fact a need and whether the B purpose for which there is that need is a public purpose. The provisions of sub-section (3) preclude a court from ascertaining whether either of these ingredients of the declaration exists."

(emphasis supplied) c

60Copy pinpoint60. In Ganga Bishnu Swaika v. Calcutta Pinjrapole Society (supra), the two-Judge Bench considered the amendment made in the Act in 1923 and observed:

D "As sub-section (1) stood prior to 1923 the words were "subject to the provisions of Part VII of the Act, when it appears to the Local Government that any particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company, a declaration shall be made etc. The amendment of 1923 dropped these words and substituted the words ''when the E Local Government is satisfied after considering the report, if any, made under Section 5-A, sub-section (2)" etc. J! seems that the amendment was considered necessary because the same Amendment Act inserted Section 5-A for the first time in the Act which gave a right to persons F interested in the land to be acquired to file objections and of being heard thereon by the Collector. The new section enjoined upon the Collector to consider such objections and make a report to the Government, whose decision on such objections was made final. One reason why the word G "satisfaction" was substituted for the word "appears" seems to be that since it was the Government who after considering the objections and the report of the Collector thereon was to arrive at its decision and then make the declaration· required by sub-section (2). the appropriate H words would be "when tl=le Local Government is satisfied"

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v.1167 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

rather than the words "when it appears to the Local A Government". The other reason which presumably led to the change in the language was to bring the words in sub- section (1) of Section 6 in line with the words used in Section 40 where the Government before granting its consent to the acquisition for a Company has to "be B satisfied" on an inquiry held as provided thereinafter. Since the Amendment Act 38 of 1923 provided an inquiry into the objections of persons interested in the land under Section 5-A, Section 40 also was amended by adding therein the words "either on the report of the Collector c under Section 5-A or''. Section 41 which requires the acquiring Company to enter into an agreement with the Government also required satisfaction of the Government after considering the report on the inquiry held under Section 40. The Amendment Act 38 of 1923 now added D in Section 41 the report of the Collector under Section 5- A, if any. These amendments show that even prior to the 1923 Amendment Act, whenever the Government was required by the Act to consider a report, the legislature had used the word satisfaction on the part of the Government. E Since the Amendment Act 1923 introduced Section 5-A requiring the Collector to hold an inquiry and to make a report and required the Government to consider that report and the objections dealt with in it, the legislature presumably thought it appropriate to use the same expression which it had used in Sections 40 and 41 where also an inquiry was provided for and the Government had to consider the report of the officer making such inquiry before giving its consent.

Sub-section (1) provides that when the Government is satisfied that a particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company. a declaration shall be made "to that effect". Satisfaction of the Government after consideration of the report. if any, made under Section 5- A is undoubtedly a condition precedent to a valid H

1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A declaration. for. there can be no valid acquisition under the Act unless the Government is satisfied that the land to be acquired is needed for a public purpose or for a Company. But there is nothing in sub-section (1) which requires that such satisfaction need be stated in the declaration. The B only declaration as required by sub-section 1 is that the land to be acquired is needed for a public purpose or for a Company. Sub-section (2) makes this clear, for it clearly provides that the declaration "shall state" where such land is situate, "the purpose for which it is needed", its c approximate area and the place. Where its plan, if made, can be inspected. It is such a declaration made under sub- section (1) and published under sub-section (2) which becomes conclusive evidence that the particular land is needed for a public purpose or for a Company as the case may be. The contention therefore that it is imperative that D the satisfaction must be expressed in the declaration or that otherwise the notification would not be in accord with Section 6 is not correct." (emphasis supplied) E

61Copy pinpoint61. The proposition laid down in the aforementioned two judgments does not support the stance of the Chandigarh Administration that even though there is breach of the mandate of Section 5A read with Section 6(1 ), the Court cannot, after F the issue of declaration under Section 6(1 ), nullify the acquisition proceedings. As a matter of fact, the ratio of both the judgments is that satisfaction of the appropriate Government envisaged in Section 6(1) must be preceded by consideration of the report prepared by the Collector after considering the objections filed under Section 5A and hearing the objectors. G This necessarily implies that the Government must objectively apply its mind to the report of the Collector and the objections filed by the landowners and then take a decision whether or not the land is needed for the specified public purpose. A mechanical endorsement of the report of the Collector cannot H

SURINDER SINGH BRAR AND OTHERS ETC.ETC. v. 1169 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]

be a substitute for the requirement of application of mind by A the Government which must be clearly reflected in the record.

62Copy pinpoint62. In addition to what we have observed on the issue of flagrant violation of the two sections, it will be apposite to recapitulate the language of the declarations issued under 8 Section 6(1 ), which were published on 28.2.2007. A reading of the declarations makes it clear that the authority issuing the same was totally unmindful of the requirement of the statute. This could be the only reason why instead of recording satisfaction of the appropriate Government that the land is C needed for a public purpose, the notification uses the expressions "appears to the Administrator" and "likely to be needed". This only adds to the casualness with which the entire issue of acquisition has been dealt with by the higher functionaries of the Chandigarh Administration. D

63Copy pinpoint63. Adverting to the impugned order, we find that the High Court has not examined the substantive grounds on which the appellants had challenged the acquisition of their land with the required seriousness and failed to notice that the LAO had not at all considered several objections including those relating to adverse impact on the environment and ecology of the area raised by the landowners and mechanically recommended the acquisition of land notified under Section 4(1 ), that the reports of the LAO were not placed before the competent authority and that even the Advisor had not objectively considered the reports of the LAO in the light of the objections filed under Section 5A(1) and simply appended his signatures on the note prepared by the Secretary (Finance). This omission on the High Court's part has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

64Copy pinpoint64. In view of the findings recorded on the main questions, we do not consider it necessary to deal with and decide other questions including the one that the purpose specified in the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) was not a bona fide public purpose and that in the·garb of acquiring land H

1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R.

A for IT Park etc., the Chandigarh Administration wanted to favour the private developers.

65Copy pinpoint65. In the result, the appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside and Notifications dated 26.6.2006, 2.8.2006 and 28.2.2007 issued by the Chandigarh Administration under 8 Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act are quashed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

B.B.B. Appeals allowed.