HIRA LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment of mine would dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12268 of 1989, 310 to 312, 2440, 2634, 2635, 3277, 3279 to 1990, 3000 of 3003, 4552, 4742, 6032, 6181, 6227 and 6891 of 1991.

(2.) THE counsel for the parties are agreed that this Court may pick up the facts from Civil Writ Petition No. 3000 of 1991, titled Him Lal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr. The facts in the aforementioned petition are that the land in dispute belonging to the petitioners was acquired by issuance of a notification, dated 8-3-1989, Annexure P-2 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). , Subsequently, another notification dated 7-3-1990 Annexure p-4, was issued under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners filed objections dated 5 4-1989, Annexure P-3, under Section 5-A of the Act for releasing their land before the issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act. According to the averments made in the petition, the petitioners constructed a house which is so mentioned in Khasra girdawari Annexure P-l. It has further been averred that the State Government has framed a policy in which it has been provided that lands on which construction has been made before the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act, could not be acquired and that such a policy was referred to in the written statement filed by the State of Haryana, in a reported case of Mohinder Singh Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1988 P. L. J. 525. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were challenged primarily on the grounds that the petitioners house was constructed before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and that the petitioners were not granted an opportunity of hearing under Section 5-A of the Act and that the State has released from acquisition the constructed area of other land owners. In the return, filed by the State of Haryana, the averments made in the petition have been denied.

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners constructed a residential house before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. This argument in the light of the denial of the State does not carry conviction. It has been specifically stated in the return that the land which was acquired by the State, was completely vacant and the same was agricultural land. In fact, in all the cases, a specific stand has been taken that there was no construction in existence in the disputed land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and if at all there was some construction which was in existence the State took a note of it and did not acquire the constructed portion and in the instant case as well, it is the stand of the State that a part of the construction i. e. area measuring 206 sq. yards was left out of acquisition.