MANSA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . By this order, I would be disposing of I.A.4218/93 filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 CPC. Plaintiffs have prayed for a restraint on the defendants from demolishing the houses and for taking over possession of property illegally and without following the due process of law. This application has been moved in a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs.

(2.) . The plaintiff numbering 23, all residents of Village Jasola, filed the above suit for declaration bearing No.967/93 on 19-4-1993. The declaration sought is that acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification No.F.4(9)/64 L & H dated 4-4-1964 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, culminating in Award No.6A/Supplementary 86-87 are illegal, ultra vires and of no effect in respect of the plaintiffs land admeasuring 21 bighas 11 biswas in Khasra No.246, Village Jasola. The plaintiffs claim that the aforesaid land to be in their ownership, acquired by inheritance and on purchase from one Sh. Mansa Ram. The extent of plot areas claimed to be owned by the plaintiffs are shown in Annexure I to the plaint. It is claimed that the plaintiffs had built their residential houses for their own requirement and use. The land being adjacent to the original settlement of the village abadi. The plaintiffs claim to be having ration cards and residing in the said houses alongwith their families. The plaintiffs have also produced house tax receipt for some of the houses.

(3.) . The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants issued notification under Section 4 to acquire the land on 4-4-1964. A declaration was also made vide notification No.F.4(9)/64 L & H dated 7-12-1966 under Section 6 of the Act. The plaintiffs allege that the publicity as required under Section 4 of the Act was not made in the locality of the village, thereby denying the opportunity of filing objections against the acquisition of the land. Further, that notices under Section 9 and 10 were not served on the plaintiffs and the award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 19-9-1986 after a gap of 22 years. The plaintiffs claimed that construction of houses had been initiated prior to notification under Section 4 and the built up area was already made at the time of award by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is claimed that land is shown having built up area in the revenue records for the years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The plaintiffs have challenged the acquisition in the suit on the ground of inordinate delay alleging that it was not the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act to issue a notice under Section 4 of the Act and make the award 24 years after notice of acquisition.