THAKAR DASS AND ORS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') on 9.12.1974 (P-1) and declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 7.4.1976 (P-2). The petitioners acquired proprietary rights in the land on 28.11.1978 when there was no award announced nor there was any entry made in the revenue record showing that the land was subject matter of acquisition. It is claimed that on 28.4.1983 when the respondent State of Haryana issued notice under Section 9 of the Act, the petitioners came to know about the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land they had purchased. Accordingly, they filed the instant petition on 11.8.1983 and a Division Bench of this Court on 24.8.1983 stayed dispossession of the petitioners. The matter was admitted for regular hearing on 5.10.1983 with the direction that the interim order was to continue. The petitioners have raised the grievance that their land could not be acquired after inordinate delay when no award has been announced.

(2.) The respondent filed the written statement on 16.9.1983 before the petition was admitted. The stand taken in the written statement is that at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 on 9.12.1974, the petitioners were neither the owner nor in possession of the land in question and, therefore, they have no locus standi. On merit it has been asserted that Khewat No. 1850, which is claimed to be owned by the petitioners, has never been subject matter of acquisition in any of the impugned notifications. It is asserted that the land comprised in Khewat No. 1939, which is subject matter of acquisition was acquired by the State of Haryana for the public purpose of setting up Water Supply Scheme for the City of Sonipat (R-3 & R-3/1). It has also been claimed that the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Officer after complying with the provisions of the Act and that similar writ petitions, bearing CWP Nos. 1183 and 1197 of 1982 in respect of the acquisition in question were dismissed on 12.5.1982.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that there is inordinate delay in finalisation of acquisition proceedings and such a delay itself would prove the lack of bona fide in the exercise of power of acquisition. According to the learned Counsel the land, in fact, is not required by the State and had it not been so then the acquisition proceedings could have been finalised within reasonable time. He has pointed out that from 9.12.1974 till 28.4.1983 no award was announced and even in the written statement no date of announcement of award has been finalised. Assailing the stand of the respondent State that the petitioners have no locus standi on account of having become the owner in 1976, learned Counsel has submitted that a Full Bench of this Court in Radhey Sham Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1982 AIR(P&H) 519, has taken the view that even a subsequent purchaser could acquire proprietary rights and would be entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings. He has placed reliance on various paragraphs of the judgment to argue that such a huge delay would prejudice the rights of the land owners in claiming fair amount of compensation as the prices have been pegged on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Another submission made by the learned Counsel is that the petitioners are owner only of a small piece of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 3453/1 and 3453/2. The total area comes to few biswas and after such a long period of more than 25 years, the public purpose of setting up of a Water Supply Scheme for the City of Sonipat, has already been achieved.