SURENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition the petitioner is challenging the Notifications dated 24.12.2007 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and 23.12.2008 issued under Section 6 of the Act as well as the award dated 23.6.2010 made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak, whereby 90.87 acres of land, including 350 sq. yards land of the petitioner was acquired for the public purpose, namely, for transport, communication under the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had purchased 350 sq. yards land vide registered sale deed dated 19.5.2005 and thereafter he raised certain construction on it. Since the petitioner's house was existing on the said land, therefore, in view of the State Government Policy framed in September, 2007, the respondent authorities should not have acquired the aforesaid land of the petitioner and it should have been released.

(2.) We have considered the aforesaid sole contention of the learned counsel and do not find any force in the same. The petitioner has not placed on record any material showing that he had raised certain construction on the aforesaid plot prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. He has only relied upon the two photographs annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. A perusal of these photographs does not show construction of any house. According to these photographs, there is only one Kutcha Kotha, approximately measuring 10' x 10' size, existing in the corner of the plot, which appears to be a recent construction. Except the photographs, there is no other cogent material or evidence, i.e., in the shape of sanctioned building plan or other documentary proof to prove that the petitioner has constructed a pucca house on his plot prior to its acquisition.

(3.) In the petition, the petitioner has taken the stand that he came to know about Section 4 Notification only through some of the neighbourers and immediately he approached the then Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, who assured that nothing would be done to the structures already existing. He did not file any objections under Section 5-A. In the Policy framed by the State Government, which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure P-7, it has been made clear that only those requests will be considered by the Government where objections under Section 5-A were filed. In our opinion, since the petitioner had chosen not to file the objections under Section 5-A of the Act, we do not find any reason or justification to quash the impugned Notifications as well as the award.