Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 131 (PNJ)

Suraj Mal v. State Of Haryana

2008-01-21

M.M.KUMAR, T.P.S.MANN

body2008
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the prayer made is for quashing the notification dated 20.6.2005 (Annexure P.4), notification dated 19.6.2006 (Annexure P.6) as well as the notice dated 7.2.2007 (Annexure P.7) under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the Act) being totally arbitrary, illegal and unjust. 2. Vide notification dated 20.6.2005 (Annexure P.4) the State of Haryana proposed to acquire land measuring 295.14 acres of land falling under Hadbast No. 75, Village Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and 162.40 acres of land falling under Hadbast No. 76, Village Haiderpur Viran, Tehsil and District Gurgaon for public purposes namely for the development and utilisation of land for residential, commercial, institutional and open spaces for Sector 52A, 53 and 54 at Gurgaon under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Objections, if any, were to be filed within 30 days. The petitioner filed detailed objections under Section 5A of the Act within time. It is averred that without deciding the objections and granting an opportunity of being heard, the respondents on 19.6.2006 issued notification (Annexure P.6) under Section 6 of the Act. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that although the notifications purports to acquire large chunk of land but the petitioners land measures only 1 Bigha 11 Biswas 1 Biswansi. The petitioner has constructed A Class pucca construction about 50 years back, on his share of land, which consists of 28 living rooms, 3 cattle sheds, one old tube well and one Gobar Gas Plant. There are more than 25 members in the family of the petitioner and he is one of the oldest inhabitant in the village. The petitioners forefathers has raised the construction by spending lifetime savings and therefore learned Counsel prays that these construction and area be excluded from acquisition. It is further asserted that despite objections having been filed under Section 5A of the Act, no orders have been passed thereon. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The instant petition is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. The land of the petitioner has been acquired after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 4.6.2005 and thereafter the petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing after he has filed objections in writing. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The instant petition is devoid of merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. The land of the petitioner has been acquired after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 4.6.2005 and thereafter the petitioner was granted opportunity of hearing after he has filed objections in writing. Those objections alongwith the report of the Collector were sent to the Government and the recommendations of the Collector were accepted. It was on the consideration of the report that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 19.6.2006 which was published in the Haryana Government gazette and the substance of the declaration was published in the newspaper as is evident from the perusal of para 1 of the preliminary objection raised in the written statement. In respect of the issue of construction, respondent No. 1 had conceded that on the spot there was one house hearing 66 x 35, one room measuring 25 x 12, three rooms with verandah measuring 35 x 22 , two rooms measuring 22 x 12 and 115 huts on the land in dispute. The rest of the entire land was totally vacant at the time of issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act. The respondents have also expressed their inability to adjust the aforesaid construction in the planning and that the land has already been acquired as per demarcation plan submitted by the Planning Department. The issue of release of land has also been replied by the respondents and it has been stated in para 5 of the written statement that no pick and choose policy has been adopted for releasing the land. We have glanced the layout, Annexure P.2, which shows that the land belonging to the petitioner marked red is in the middle of the area and could not be adjusted in the planning. A glance at the photographs (Annexure P.3) shows that the construction of the petitioner is haphazard. Therefore, there is no sustainable ground to accept the prayer made by the petitioner. Even otherwise the matter is no longer res-integra as CWP No. 2779 of 2007 Om Parkash Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. which was directed against the same notifications dated 20.6.2005 and 19.6.2006 ( Annexures P.4 and P.6) were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 10.9.2007. Even otherwise the matter is no longer res-integra as CWP No. 2779 of 2007 Om Parkash Yadav and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. which was directed against the same notifications dated 20.6.2005 and 19.6.2006 ( Annexures P.4 and P.6) were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 10.9.2007. A copy of the same has been taken on record as Mark "A". On that score the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.