JAG RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, through this Writ Petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing Notification dated 13th August, 1981, annexure P-1 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Notification dated 24th January, 1984 issued under Section 6 of the Act.

(2.) In brief, the case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of land bearing Killa Nos. 29/10/2, 10/2/2, 10/3 and 23/4/1, situated within the revenue estate of village Daulatpur Nasirabad (Carter Puri) Hadbast No. 63, Sector 23-A, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The respondent No. 1 issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') acquiring the land of the petitioner as well as other landowners on 16th November, 1981 with the object of development and utilization of the land for residential and commercial purposes at Gurgaon by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'HUDA'). Copy of the said notification is annexure P-1 to the writ petition. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 issued another notification dated 24th January, 1984 under Section 6 of the Act, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure P-2 to the writ petition. Though the petitioner filed objections to the said notifications under Section 5-A of the Act, but despite that he was not afforded any opportunity of being heard. The petitioner had three sons out of whom, eldest one was in Military and he died in December, 1978. In his memory, the petitioner had built a Smadhi in Killa No. 10/3, Rect No. 29 and as such he raised a plea that his land cannot be acquired under the law. It has been averred in the writ petition that the petitioner in order to provide accommodation to his sons, had constructed houses separately for each of them. The acquisition in question was being made for residential-cum-commercial purposes and since the petitioner had already constructed houses and was living with his family members, the same should not have been acquired.

(3.) The sole ground of attack by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner on which he constructed a Smadhi in the memory of his son and constructed houses for his sons in which he is living with his family members, could not be acquired under the law. The learned counsel further contends that the impugned notifications have no sanctity and as such they are liable to be quashed. The decision of the State Government in acquiring the land was arbitrary and unreasonable as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard.