SATPAL DHIMAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of CWP No. 13117 of 2006 titled as Satpal Dhiman son of Shri Jyoti Ram Dhiman v. State of Haryana and Ors., CWP No. 18340 of 2006 titled as Abhinav Singla son of Virender Singla v. State of Haryana and Ors., CWP No. 18546 of 2006 titled as Darshan Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. and CWP No. 13117 of 2006 and other connected matter 3 others, CWP No. 17232 of 2006 titled as Sardool Kumar Kalra v. State of Haryana and Ors., CWP No. 18524 of 2006 titled as Vikas Dhiman and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., CWP No. 17682 of 2006 titled as Prem Sagar v. State of Haryana and Ors., CWP No. 18110 of 2006 titled as Suman Lata v. State of Haryana and Ors., CWP No. 18262 of 2006 titled as Jai Bhagwan Rana v. State of Haryana and Ors. and CWP No. 18275 of 2006 titled as Leela Wati v. State of Haryana and Ors.. For facility of reference, facts are taken from titled as Satpal Dhiman son of Shri Jyoti Ram Dhiman v. State of Haryana and Ors. CWP No. 13117 of 2006

(2.) Improvement Trust, Ambala-Respondent No. 3, vide Resolution No. 12 dated 16.10.2001 passed Scheme No. 22 framed under Sections 24 and 28 (2) of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922, as applicable to Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Improvement Act, 1922'). Notification under Section 36 of the Improvement Act, 1922 was issued on 05.02.2002 (Annexure P-8), wherein the boundaries of the Scheme were specified apart from the area, which was 3.95 acres. The land owner was given notice on 04.03.2002. His objections were heard but were rejected. Declaration under Section 42 of the Improvement Act, 1922 was issued on 27.08.2004 (Annexure P-10). Notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Acquisition Act, 1894') was issued to the Petitioner.

(3.) He approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the declaration issued under Section 42 of the Improvement Act, 1922 on the ground that the said notification was beyond the period of one year as prescribed under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act, 1894, which is applicable to the Improvement Act, 1922 by virtue of Section 59 and the schedule therein, according to which, Sections 4 and 6 of the Acquisition Act, 1894 correspond to Sections 36 and 42 of the Improvement Act, 1922 respectively. Besides this, various other grounds were also taken by the Petitioner for challenging the declaration issued under Section 42 of the Improvement Act, 1922 but they were not referred to or argued by the counsel for the Petitioner and thus are not being stated here.