RAM KISHAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, petitioners seek to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing notifications dated 8.3.1989 (Annexure P-2) and 7.3.1990 (Annexure P-3) under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act respectively.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that petitioners No. 1 to 3 are the owners of plot measuring 800 sq. meters comprising in khasra No. 1 142/1 in the Revenue Estate of Gurgaon Hadbast No. 55 at Pataudi Road within the municipal limits of Gurgaon; the said plot was purchased by petitioners No. 1 to 3 vide registered sale deed dated 15.6.1979 and mutation No. 7626 was sanctioned in their favour; the plot abuts to Gurgaon Pataudi Road and is surrounded by shops and houses; the petitioners No. 1 to 3 have constructed a building, some part of which is rented out to Hari Udyog and the remaining portion of the building is being used by petitioners No. 1 to 3; Petitioners No. 4 to 6 are owners in possession of area comprised in Rect. No. 4 Killa No. 1, 10/1 Rect. No. 5 Killa No. 12/1/2/2 Rect. No. 10 Killa No. 2, 3/1, 8, 9; the entire property of the petitioners No. 4 to 6 is surrounded by constructed houses; petitioners No. 7 to 10 are owners of khasra No. 4/27/2/2 measuring 1833 sq. yards whereupon petitioners No. 7 to 10 have raised constructions and they have no other residential accommodation in Urban area; the plot of the petitioners is within the Municipal Limits, Gurgaon; petitioner No. 11 purchased plot No. 60 measuring 100 sq. yards, which is a part of khasra No. 27 and is situated within the Revenue Estate of Gurgaon on Kadipur Basai Road and this plot was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 7.2.1985 and thereafter construction was raised where the factory is already working and the petitioner is earning his revenue; petitioners have raised construction on their plots and is surrounded by all developed colonies; the State Government vide notification dated 8.3.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') sought to acquire the land for the public purpose namely for the development and utilization of the land for residential and commercial area, Sector 9, 9A and 10 at Gurgaon; there has been no publicity of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the locality/Ilaka, still on coming to know of the issuance of the said notification, the petitioners filed their respective objections before the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Sector 17, Gurgaon, inter alia on the ground that they have raised constructions on the said plots and that huge amount has been spent on the construction; it may kindly be exempted from the acquisition; no hearing whatsoever of the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act was afforded although opportunity of hearing is mandatory in law; pick and choose method has been adopted by the authorities, while issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act and the authorities released the land of the person, who could appease the authorities, whereas the petitioners, who are the holders of small residential plots/house and could not appease the authorities, are made to suffer; the authorities have released some of the vacant plot and some of the houses constructed after the issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, although the petitioners also fall in the same category, with the persons, whose property has been released from the acquisition; the case of the petitioners is, in fact at par with that of the persons, whose land has been released from the acquisition, rather the case of the petitioners stands on better footing viz-a-viz the property, which has been exempted from the acquisition; the respondents issued a notification under Section 6 of the Act finally acquiring the land of the petitioners; no survey of the area has been done in accordance with the procedure for the acquisition of the land, as laid down in the Financial Commissioner's standing orders No. 28 before taking a final decision in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and before issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act; the Government could not include the land of the petitioners, as there was construction and the land was sandwich between the other residential houses; provisions of the Act is invoked by depriving the persons of the land on which, they have built up their houses and are residing therein with their families for the purpose of the development and utilization of the land for providing plots to other persons; the State Government preferred one citizen over the other, in the matter of providing plots from residential and industrial purposes; the owners of the land were deprived of their residential houses/plots; learned Collector before submitting the recommendation as required under Section 5-A did not maintain the record and did not record his satisfaction; State Government without satisfying itself on the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Officer issued notification under Section 6 of the Act; no satisfaction is recorded before issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) Respondents have contested the writ petition by way of filing a written statement. The main contention of the respondents is that before issuance of the notification Under Section 6 of the Act Section 5-A of the Act was duly complied with; Report of the learned Land Acquisition Collector was duly considered before forming opinion of acquiring the land.