Impermissible Delegation of Power and Lack of Proper Authority Signature Invalidate Acquisition Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a significant judgment, has quashed the land acquisition of Gita Bhawan Mandir in Chandigarh. The Court found the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to be invalid due to improper delegation of authority and the lack of appropriate signatures by the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh. This judgment addresses the essential legal issue of adherence to proper procedural and legal mandates in land acquisition processes.

The case involved the acquisition of land belonging to the religious institution, Gita Bhawan Mandir, by the Chandigarh Administration. The petitioner, Mahant Shri Murari Mal Baba Trust, challenged the validity of the acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the subsequent award. The central issue revolved around the legality of these notifications, particularly concerning the delegation of power and the authority of the signatory.

The Court meticulously analyzed the case, noting that the notifications were signed by the Secretary Engineering, U.T. Chandigarh, instead of the Administrator. Citing the Apex Court's verdict in Surinder Singh Brar’s case, the Court emphasized the necessity of proper authority signatures for such notifications. The Court observed, "no closest and keenest application of mind was made by the Administrator, to the necessity of the acquisitions being made," thereby rendering the notifications legally impermissible. The Court also addressed the issue of ex-post facto validation of the notifications under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894, following the enforcement of the Act of 2013, finding such validation legally impermissible.

The judgment reinforces the principles regarding the delegation of power and authority in governmental actions, especially in land acquisition. It underscores the binding nature of procedural compliance as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the subsequent Act of 2013, emphasizing the necessity for the appropriate authority's direct involvement and signature.

Concluding the assessment, the Court quashed the impugned notifications and award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It directed the petitioner to maintain the status quo regarding the creation of third-party rights for a period of one year for potential re-acquisition by the respondent-State under the Act of 2013.

Date of Decision: 31.1.2024

Mahant Shri Murari Mal Baba Trust  VS Union Territory, Chandigarh and Another