NATHU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged notification dated 3.10.2006 (P-2), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the Act) and declaration made on 1.10.2007 under Section 6 of the Act. THE principal ground of challenge of the acquisition proceedings is that the Collector has not granted adequate hearing to the petitioner and the objections filed by him under Section 5-A of the Act have also not been considered properly. THE other ground of challenge is discrimination. It has been alleged that the land belonging to the petitioner is surrounded by the vacant land owned by various private builders but the same has not been acquired.

(2.) ON 11.3.2010, when the instant petition came up for motion hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly pointed out that the writ petition was filed on 24.9.2009 and the same was returned by the Registry with the objection Incomplete petition in all respects. The petition could be re- filed only on 9.3.2010. However, in the interregnum period the Land Acquisition Collector announced the award on 30.9.2009. Accordingly, the issue which arises for determination is whether announcement of award during the interregnum period would attract the delay caused due to re-filing the petition by the petitioner and will be hit by various judgments of Honble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280, or not.

(3.) AFTER bestowing our thoughtful consideration on the submissions made by the learned senior counsel, we are of the view that the instant petition lacks merit and is thus liable to be dismissed. It is well settled that possession of the land can always be taken by visiting the spot and making entry in the rapat roznamcha. For the aforesaid proposition, reliance may be placed on para 4 of the judgement rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bal Mokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust v. State of Punjab (1996) 4 SCC 212 which reads thus: 4. It is seen that the entire gamut of the acquisition proceedings stood completed by 17-4-1976 by which date possession of the land had been taken. No doubt, Shri Parekh has contended that the appellant still retained their possession. It is now well-settled legal position that it is difficult to take physical possession of the land under compulsory 1241 acquisition. The normal mode of taking possession is drafting the Panchanama in the presence of Panchas and taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries is the accepted mode of taking possession of the land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tantamount only to illegal or unlawful possession. It is thus obvious that normal rule of taking possession is entry in the rapat roznamcha (Panchnama), taking of possession and giving delivery to the beneficiary. It is further pertinent to mention that retention of possession by the land owner thereafter would tantamount to illegal and unlawful possession.