CHANDU SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, we propose to dispose of C.W.P.Nos.1593 of 1991 titled as Chandu Singh v. The State of Haryana and another, 1906 of 1991 titled as Tilak Raj v. The State of Haryana and another, 1992 of 1991 titled as Ram Karan v. The State of Haryana and another, 1706 of 1991 titled as Badle and another v. The State of Haryana and another, 1887 of 1991 titled as Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, 2034 of 1991 titled as Harish Pal and others v. The State of Haryana and another, 1929 of 1991 titled as Gianinder Singh and another v. The State of Haryana and another, 2036 of 1991 titled as Sher Singh v. The State of Haryana and another, 1863 of 1991 titled as Siri Pal v. The State of Haryana and another,1994 of 1991 titled as Jagmal v. The State of Haryana and another, 1886 of 1991 titled as Abdul Waheed Khan and others v. The State of Haryana and another, 1705 of 1991 titled as Bhudev Singh and others v. The State of Haryana and another, 1704 of 1991 titled as Singraj and others v. The State of Haryana and another, 1905 of 1991 titled as Smt. Shakuntla and another v. State of Haryana and another and 2166 of 1991 titled as Inder Singh v. The State of Haryana and another, as the acquisition of the land in question is under same notification and is of the same area as also the grounds and reasons praying for release of the land on which residential houses of the petitioners are in existence is also the same. Counsel for the parties have also stated in the same terms. Accordingly, the cases are taken up for hearing together.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the Government of Haryana, Urban Estate Department, issued a notification dated 2.8.1989 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') proposing to acquire 194.97 acres of land situated in the revenue estate of village Mewla Maharajpur, Hadbast No.4, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, for development and utilization of the notified land as residential and commercial purposes in Sector 45 of Faridabad under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. Almost all the petitioners in the writ petitions submitted their objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The appropriate Government, on consideration of the same, did not accept all the objections leading to the issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Act on 1.8.1990 wherein a declaration was issued for acquisition of 184.66 acres of land meaning thereby that 10.31 acres of land was exempted from acquisition. Thereafter, notice under Section 9 of the Act was served on the petitioners on 15.1.1991 leading to the filing of the above-mentioned writ petitions praying therein for release of the constructed houses of the petitioners as had been released qua others for example residential houses constructed in Khasra No.14, 15/1 and 15/2 of rectangle No.50 as also of Chhote Lal and others, who have built their houses on the land comprising khasra No.22/2 of rectangle No.49. Houses constructed by Jamal and others on khasra No.18 of rectangle No.42 have also been exempted from acquisition. The petitioners have contended that they are similarly situated and have their built up houses in the same vicinity, but they have been discriminated against, thereby leading to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been pleaded that their objections have been wrongly rejected whereas the objections of similarly placed persons have been accepted and their residential houses have been released while the houses of the petitioners which are their only residential houses have been acquired. Accordingly, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of notifications dated 2.8.1989 and 1.8.1990 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively, as well as notice dated 15.1.1991 issued under Section 9 of the Act.

(3.) State of Haryana has contested the claim of the petitioners; however, in reply to the assertions made by the petitioners with regard to the release of residential houses of similarly placed persons, no specific denial has been made of the assertions, except for that of Jamal and others as it has been stated that they had filed a writ petition in this Court but it has not been averred about any stay granted by this Court or the stage of the case.