VINOD TAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner alleges that the notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of his land measuring 85 kanals 4 marlas are an abuse of the power under law. He prays that these notifications be quashed. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) THE story begins with the year 1905. The land measuring 85 kanals 4 marlas alongwith a house thereon was taken by the Government on lease for a period of 30 years for the residence of the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar. At the expiry of the term, the lease was renewed for a further term of 20 years. It expired on March 31, 1955. The petitioner's predecessor-in-interest requested the State Government to vacate the premises. It was not vacated. A fresh lease deed was executed w.e.f. April, 1960. It was to be for a period of five years or till such time as the new house proposed to be constructed for the Deputy Commissioner was actually built. A copy of this lease deed is at Annexure P.3 with the writ petition. The period of five years expired. The residence for the Deputy Commissioner was not completed. On January 8, 1968, the Deputy Commissioner requested the petitioner's father to be "good enough to let the house remain on lease with Government on the same terms and conditions as of the previous lease deed."

(3.) On April 17, 1999, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 9. He, thus, came to know that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued on November 12, 1996 and April 30, 1997. Soon thereafter, he approached this court through the present writ petition on April 22, 1999. The petitioner alleges that the notifications had been issued on account of extraneous considerations as his cousins had always opposed the then Chief Minister of the State. He further alleges that he had been agitating for the vacation of the premises since the year 1965. The land is not being acquired for any public purpose. The provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have not been complied with. Thus, the impugned notifications as also the notice under Section 9, copies of which are on record as Annexures P.7 to P.9 cannot be sustained. He prays that these be quashed.