TEEKA RAM Vs. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein impugned the acquisition of land by notifications dated March 31, 1989 (Annexure P.1) and March 21, 1990 (Annexure P.2). Both the notifications were initially issued on March 31, 1989. The petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings through Civil Writ Petition No. 6440 of 1989. In pursuance to the notice of motion issued by the Division Bench, the notification under Section 6 was withdrawn. The writ petition was accordingly rendered infructuous and dismissed as such vide orders dated February 21, 1990. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 was issued again on March 21, 1990. Provisions of Section 17 having been invoked, the petitioner challenges these notifications primarily on two grounds. It has been firstly urged that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated as the provisions of Section 4 which are mandatory had not been complied with inasmuch as the notifications had not been published in two daily newspapers as also the substance of the notification had not been given at convenient places in the locality. Secondly, it has been urged that in the circumstances of the case, the emergency provisions of Section 17 could not have been invoked.

(2.) The respondents, on the other hand, have pointed out that the notification under Section 4 has been duly published in accordance with the provisions of law. It has been further pointed out that the petitioner was fully aware of the notification and the acquisition proceedings. It has also been pointed out that the emergency provisions had been invoked in view of the fact that the land was being acquired for the construction of godowns at Karnal by Haryana State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. The godowns are being constructed under the World Bank scheme through the National Cooperative Development Corporation of India and the entire amount is to be invested by the World Bank. In view of the fact that it was a time-bound scheme, it had become necessary to invoke the urgency provisions under Section 17. It has also been averred in the written statement that the petitioner was not the exclusive owner of the land under acquisition. In fact he was one of the seven co-sharers and none of the other co-sharers had raised any objection to the proceedings for acquisition. It has also been averred that initially the notification under Section 6 had to be withdrawn as the two notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act had been issued on the same day viz. March 31, 1989. After the dismissal of the writ petition, a notification under Section 6 of the Act had been issued on March 21, 1990. Further notices under Section 9 were also issued and all formalities including the announcement of award were completed on July 31, 1990.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and M/s C.P. Goel and Jaswant Singh for the respondents.