STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 28.4.2004 rendered by learned Single Judge holding that the acquisition in respect of the plot of the writ petitioner- respondent was bad in the eyes of law for two reasons. The first reason which emerges from the perusal of the order is that the provisions of emergency/urgency under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') had been invoked without any justifiable reason. According to the learned Single Judge, the notification invoking the emergency/urgency provisions for acquiring the land in question was issued on 22.11.1972 and for 12 long years possession was not taken i. e. when the writ petitioner- respondent filed the writ petition relatable to the instant appeal. According to the learned Single Judge, once emergency provisions had been invoked, then it is natural that the land would be utilized for a public purpose without any delay whereas in the instant case, the land has not been utilized for a long time taking into consideration the time which elapsed for deciding the controversy. The learned Single Judge further noticed that from the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act three decades have passed and the writ -petitioner-respondent continued to be in possession of the acquired land. In fact she has built two big rooms, a kitchen and a boundary wall which is a residential house. The second reason given by the learned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and quashing the acquisition is the discrimination perpetrated by the appellant on her. In that regard the learned Single Judge has noticed that the plot measuring 1000 square yards owned by one Parmod Kumari was released from acquisition by exercising powers under Section 48 of the Act. That plot falls in the same khasra number in which the plot of the writ petitioner-respondent measuring 450 square yards falls. There was hardly any justification given for discriminating between the case of the writ petitioner-respondent and that of Parmod Kumari. It was on the aforesaid basis that the order dated 1.8.1984 rejecting the prayer of the writ petitioner-respondent for releasing her plot measuring 450 square yards from acquisition had been quashed and direction has been issued to pass an order denotifying the land measuring 450 square yards belonging to her in accordance with law.

(2.) We have heard learned State counsel for the appellants and have perused the paper book with his able assistance. It is pertinent to notice that on 28.10.2005, a Division Bench of this Court had ordered for maintenance of status quo with regard to the nature, title and possession of the property in question. We are of the considered view that the writ petition has been rightly accepted by the learned Single Judge although for different and additional reasons.

(3.) The principles on which the urgency provision could be invoked have been laid down in various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In a recent judgment rendered in Union of India v. Mukesh Hans, 2004 8 SCC 14, it has been laid down that invoking Section 17(4) of the Act would not automatically result into dispensing with a right of hearing granted by Section 5A of the Act where an individual owner can file objections in support of the claim that his/her land cannot be acquired. Invoking the emergency /urgency provisions is one thing and dispensing with an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is quite another. Therefore, the requirement of law as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Hans Mukesh Hans is that it is not merely by directing that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act would not apply, which would automatically result into dispensation of an enquiry under that provision. Such type of cases would be where on account of river action the bridges are to be built and there is hardly any time with the State to grant an opportunity of hearing or holding enquiry under Section 5A of the Act.