DKUSHAN AUTAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners to this writ petition have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash notifications dated 28th March, 1985. (Annexure P1) and dated 16th January, 1986 (Annexure P6) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, respectively. The relief in the manner indicated above stems from an unrebutted assertion made in paras 3 and 4 of the petition that they are in possession of Khasra No. 3097 measuring 0.5 Biswa where they have constructed a residential house, a cow shed, a tubewell, for cattle manager and a lavatory, and as per the police framed by the Government itself the constructed house or other buildings cannot be acquired. This writ petition was admitted by a Division Bench of his Court on 18th July, 1986. The respondents were duly served but all this while no written statement was filed on the records of this case. The matter has remained on the cause list on different occasions for quite some time and even during that time, the respondents did not choose to file any written statement.

(2.) The facts stated in the petition for non-filing of any written statement shall have to be taken to be true. As referred to above, the petitioners have clearly mentioned in paras 2 & 3 of the petition that they have constructed a house on the land in dispute and the policy of the Government is not to acquire constructed areas. In support of this contention that the constructed area cannot be acquired, reliance has been place by the counsel for the petitioners on a judgment of this Court reported as Mohinder Singh Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1988 2 RRR 502. The learned counsel also relies on an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP 8070/90 (Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana) decided on February, 18, 1991. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on the basis of the written statement filed by the respondents of the said case where they had taken a stand that the constructed area with proportionate vacant land would be released from acquisition. Although the aforesaid decision cannot be cited as a precedent to show that the Government had necessarily to release the constructed area from acquisition, but such a stand was taken by the respondents and the constructed area was released from acquisition.

(3.) In view of what has been stated above and in particular, in view of the uncontroverted facts, this petition is allowed to the extent that the constructed house of the petitioner which is stated to be in a boundary wall shall be released from acquisition. The respondents would, however, be at liberty to acquire that portion of the vacant area that may fall in a street, road, public, park or other public place as per zoning and planning that must have been worked out by now or might be worked out in future. However, no case for setting aside or quashing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, as a whole, has been made out. The writ petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. There will, however, be no order as to costs.