SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of bunch of four petitions bearing CWP Nos. 21621 of 2008, 6557, 2482 and 6952 of 2009 as acquisition proceedings have been initiated by the common notifications which are subject matter of challenge. In all the petitions, the prayer made is for quashing notification dated 5.3.2008 (P.1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration dated 6.11.2008 (P.2) issued under Section 6 of the Act. The purpose of acquisition is to extend the grain market which had a sub yard at Jhansa, Tehsil Ismailabad, District Kurukshetra. It is pertinent to mention that earlier on 27.11.2006 (P.3) the same land was sought to be acquired but the earlier notification lapsed and acquisition proceedings were dropped. Thereafter fresh acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuing notifications dated 5.3.2008 and 6.11.2008 (P.1 and P.2.).

(2.) Facts necessary for disposal of the controversy raised are being taken from CWP No. 6557 of 2009. By initiation of acquisition proceedings land measuring 17 acres, 2 kanals and 12 marlas for extension of the sub yard at Jhansa was sought to be acquired (P.1 and P.2). Earlier notification dated 27.11.2006 for acquiring the same land had expired and only 4 kanal of land could be acquired (P.3). The petitioners have alleged that earlier in 1981 land measuring 37 acres was acquired for developing a mandi/market yard at village Ajrana (Kurukshetra) on the request of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board- respondent No. 3 (for brevity 'the Board'). A large population living within 5 kms. radius of the market yard have been its beneficiary. The purpose of establishing the mandi was to facilitate farmers to sell and store their produce to get its maximum price. Even licences were issued to different commission agents numbering about 70-75 under the Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana (for brevity 'the Market Act').The shops were constructed and auctioned to the licensee. Some of the petitioners are owner in possession of the land which is subject matter of acquisition as is evident from the revenue record (P.4 and P.5). In some of the petitions it has been urged that earlier a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27.11.2006 (P.3) and that a corrigendum dated 4.7.2007 (P.6) was also issued. However, it lapsed and acquisition proceedings were not completed (R.1). Their land was not subject matter of acquisition which has been included in the subsequent impugned notification. Some land has also not been included which was earlier intended to acquire.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the State the broad factual position has not been disputed. It has been pointed out in para 2 of the preliminary submissions that earlier CWP No. 21500 of 2008 (Hazoor Singh v. State of Haryana) has been dismissed on 31.1.2009 where same notifications were challenged on the ground of existence of Ajrana Mandi. A reference has been made to the objectives of Market Act; which is to create better infrastructure for the sale, purchase, process and storage of 'Agriculture Produce'. Under Section 34 of the Market Act on the request of a Committee the State may proceed to acquire land under the Act.