HARI PARSHAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the notification dated 18th July. 1994 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the 'Act') acquiring their land and the declaration dated 10th Feburary, 1998 made under Section 6 of the Act, by tiling CWP No. 8645 of 1995. The writ petition was filed on 6th June, 1995, which came up for motion hearing on 7th June. 1995 when the dispossession of the petitioners from the land in dispute was stayed by the Division Bench. Eventually, declaration dated 28th April. 1995 made under Section 6 of the Act was quashed on 30th May, 1997 by this Court and the respondents were given the option to issue fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The basic reason for quashing the declaration made on 28th April. 1995 under Section 6 of the Act was that the objections filed by the petitioners were not decided as they were allegedly found to be time barred. The Division Bench issued directions to the respondents to decide the objections irrespective of the fact whether the objections were time barred or not. The respondent-State was granted liberty to the respondents to issue notification afresh in accordance with law. The aforesaid order attained finality and therefore, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was again made on 10th February, 1998.

(2.) The petitioners filed the present writ petition, namely, CWP No. 5140 of 1998 pleading numerous grounds including the plea that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been made after lapse of one year. However, this time their petition was dismissed on 7th September. 1999. Aggrieved by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners approached Hon'ble the Supreme Court urging that fresh declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 10th February. 1998 had lapsed. On the basis of pleadings. Hon'ble the Supreme Court found that no satisfactory reply was given to the categorical averments made by the petitioners in the para 17 of their writ petition with regard to lapsing of the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act. After considering the aforesaid factual position. Hon'ble the Supreme Court set aside the judgment dated 7th September. 1999 of the Division Bench of this Court and remanded the matter to this Court so as to enable the parties to complete the pleadings. The view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is descernible from the last three paras of the order dated 20th January. 2009, which reads thus :-

(3.) After remand when the matter came up before us on 16th February, 2010, we noticed the view taken by their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court holding that substantial issue with regard to lapsing of declaration under Section 6 of the Act was raised. However, the State Government or its Agency failed to reply the averments made by the petitioners. The learned State counsel sought time to file a specific affidavit as to how the declaration made on 10th February, 1998 was within a period of one year, as per the provisions of Section 6(1) proviso (ii) of the Act. Accordingly, affidavit by respondents No. 1 and 2 has been filed. The stand taken in para 4 of the affidavit of both the respondents is that period of one year has to be reckoned by excluding the period taken for hearing of the objections, preparation of the report and receipt of the same by the Government. If the aforesaid stand is accepted, then the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act would be within a period of one year within the meaning of proviso (ii) to Section 6(1) of the Act.