GOBIND SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioners, who were owners of land measuring 13 Kanals 2 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of Jharsaintly, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad was acquired by the respondents, have challenged notification dated 17.12.1981 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), notification dated 29.04.1985 (Annexure P-7) issued under Section 6 of the Act, Award dated 28.04.1987 (Annexure P-8) and the report dated 28.04.1987 (Annexure P-9) about the delivery of possession of the land in dispute praying therein for quashing of the same and for issuance of any other writ, order or direction.

(2.) It has been pleaded by the petitioners that State of Haryana-respondent No. 1 issued notification under Section 4 of the Act in the year 1971-72 for acquiring about 390 acres of land including the aforementioned land of the petitioners for urban development purposes. The process of acquisition was not completed and the notification lapsed. Thereafter, State of Haryana issued a fresh notification dated 17.12.1981 (Annexure P-3) under Section 4 of the Act, whereby 389.31 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Jharsaintly was sought to be acquired for the development and utilisation of land as Industrial area in Sector 25, Part-I of Faridabad-Ballabhgarh Controlled Area. In this notification, land of the petitioners aforementioned was also included. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 14.01.1982 (Annexure P-4). The same were summarily rejected by the respondents leading to the issuance of notification dated 04.02.1983 (Annexure P-5) under Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) The petitioners filed CWP No. 1891 of 1983 titled as Gobind Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others for quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. This writ petition was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 23.01.1984, whereby notification dated 04.02.1983 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 6 of the Act qua the petitioners was quashed and the petitioners were given an opportunity to file fresh objections under Section 5-A of the Act within 30 days of the date of order and the objections shall be disposed of on merits in accordance with law. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to challenge the notification issued under Section 4 dated 17.12.1981 and notification, if any, issued under Section 6 of the Act subsequently by the Government on deciding the objections preferred by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners submitted an application requesting the Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 2 to decide the objections already filed by the petitioners on 14.01.1982 after giving an opportunity to the petitioners to produce evidence. Respondent No. 2 afforded the opportunity to the petitioners to produce evidence on 21.03.1984 in support of their objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners produced documentary evidence to show that the land of the petitioners measuring 13 Kanals 2 Marlas (1.64 acres) had already been covered by construction of factory and some of the lands were reserved for the extension of the industrial units, on which eucalyptus trees were in existence and entries to this effect also existed in the revenue record, which was also produced before the Land Acquisition Collector. The objections, as filed by the petitioners, were not accepted by the State Government and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29.04.1985 (Annexure P-7). No land of the petitioners was exempted. Thereafter, an Award dated 28.04.1987 (Annexure P-8) was passed by respondent No. 2. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioners, which came up for hearing before this Court on 29.01.1990 when dispossession of the petitioners was stayed.