RAM AVTAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the notifications dated September 8, 1997 and September 7, 1998, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He prays that these notifications, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P3 and P4 with the writ petition be quashed.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Sachin Mittal, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner alone was given a notice under Section 9 whereas factually the land was the joint holding of three persons. Thus, the notice under Section 9 given on August 14, 2000 as also the subsequent award are vitiated.

(3.) FACED with this situation the counsel has raised a half-hearted contention that there is construction at the site. It may be so. The compensation due on account of the construction must have also been assessed. It has not been even suggested that no payment has been made for the structure at the site.