By another numberification 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.
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 set out in para 35 in the companytext of the report of the Special Auditor and the one man companymittee.
After making a show of hearing the objectors, the Land Acquisition Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh submitted report with the recommendation that the land numberified on 1.10.2002 may be acquired.
The report of the Land Acquisition Officer was accepted by the officers of the Chandigarh Administration and declaration dated 29.9.2003 was issued under Section 6 1 of the 1894 Act for 56.76 acres land.
After about 2 years of the issuance of the first numberification 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 set out in para 44 was issued and the earlier numberification 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 companytrol and until further orders, the powers and functions of the appropriate Government shall also be exercised and discharged by the Administrator.
The use of the expression shall also be exercised and discharged in the Notifications dated 8 10 1968, 1 1 1970 and 14 8 1989 is a clear pointer in this direction.
All the writ petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order.
Thus, the acquisition of land for and on behalf of the Union Territories must be sanctioned by the Administrator of the particular Union territory and numberother officer is companypetent to exercise the power vested in the appropriate Government under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
This was subject to the Presidents own companytrol and until further orders.
By Notification dated 1.10.2002 issued under Section 4 1 of the 1894 Act, the Chandigarh Administration proposed the acquisition of 71.96 acres land for various purposes including the Chandigarh Technology Park.
By the Notification dated 1 11 1966 set out in para 42 , 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 numberifications, the power exercisable by the appropriate Government under the Act and the Land Acquisition Companies Rules, 1963 were delegated to the Administrator.
The officers appointed as Adviser are invariably members of the Indian Administrative Service.
The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land in Civil Writ Petition No.8545/2004 titled Gurbinder Kaur Brar and another v. Union of India and others and Civil Writ Petition No.12779/2004 titled Milkha Singh Union of India and others.
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 territory and on his appointment, the Governor is required to exercise his function as an Administrator independently of his Council of Ministers.
Similar petitions were filed by other landowners whose land had been acquired for Phases II and III of Chandigarh Technology Park.
Subsequently, the President appointed the Governor of Punjab as Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh and separate numberifications were issued for appointment of Adviser to the Administrator.
In Surinder Singh Brar and others v. Union of India and others supra , this Court reversed the order of the High Court and quashed the acquisition of land for Phase III of Chandigarh Technology Park and various other purposes specified in Notifications dated 26.6.2006, 2.8.2006 and 28.2.2007.
As against this, amended Article 239 lays down that subject to any law enacted 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.
It is number too difficult to fathom the reasons for this departure from Notification dated 1 11 1966.
The appellants filed detailed objections under Section 5A 1 because their land were also included in Notification dated 1.10.2002.
The Notification dated 8 10 1968 was superseded by the Notification dated 1 1 1970 set out in para 45 and the President directed that subject to his companytrol 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 Commissioner or the Lieutenant Governor.
While dealing with the question whether the officers of the Union Territory of Chandigarh other than the Administrator companyld issue numberifications under Sections 4 1 and 6 1 of the 1894 Act, this Court referred to Article 239 of the Constitution unamended and amended , Notifications dated 8.10.1968, 1.1.1970 and 14.8.1989 issued under Clause 1 of that Article, Notification dated 25.2.1988 issued by the Administrator, Union Territory of Chandigarh under Section 3 1 of the Chandigarh Delegation of Powers Act, 1987 for short, the 1987 Act and observed The unamended Article 239 envisaged administration of the States specified in Part C of the First Schedule of the 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.
A reading of the Notification issued on 1 11 1966 set out in para 42 shows that in exercise of the power vested in him under Article 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.
S. SINGHVI, J. Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against order dated 18.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants for quashing the acquisition of their land were dismissed along with a batch of other petitions.
At the outset, we may mention that the impugned order was set aside by this Court in Surinder Singh Brar and others v. Union of India and others 2013 1 SCC 403 and Notifications dated 26.6.2006, 2.8.2006 and 28.2.2007 issued by the Chandigarh Administration under Sections 4 1 and 6 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for short, the 1894 Act for the acquisition of land for Phase III of Chandigarh Technology Park were quashed.
