RABINDRA NATH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A large chunk of land including that of the petitioners in villages Nagal Moginand and Bana Madanpur in tehsil and District Panchkula was acquired by the State of Haryana for a public purpose namely for the construction of building of Police Lines, Panchkula and staff quarters of police personnel posted in Police Lines. A preliminary notification dated August 13, 1997 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued and it was notified that any person interested who had any objection to the acquisition of the land in the locality could, within a period of 30 days of the publication of the notification in the Official Gazette or in the daily newspapers or from the date of publicity in the locality, whichever was later, file objections in writing before the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula. Petitioners did not file their objections though several other land owners whose land was being acquired filed their objections in writing under Section 5-A of the Act. All the objectors who had filed their objections were given hearing on 27.1.1998. The Land Acquisition Collector after hearing the objectors sent his report to the State Government on 20.2.1998 under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter, the State Government issued the declaration under Section 6 of the Act acquiring 40 acres and 7 biswas of land in village Nagal Moginand and another 52 acres and 16 marlas of land in village Bana Madanpur. The acquired land included the land of the petitioners as well. Feeling aggrieved by the acquisition, the petitioners filed a petition before the State Government under Section 15-A of the Act which was heard by the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Home Department and the same was dismissed on 27.7.2000. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act has also been challenged in this petition.

(2.) IN response to the notice of motion the respondents have filed their reply controverting the allegations made in the writ petition.

(3.) THE first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the substance of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act had not been published in the locality and, therefore, the mandatory provisions of the Act having not been complied with, the notification and the acquisition proceedings are illegal. An affidavit of the Chowkidar of the village has been filed as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition and he has stated therein "that no Mushtari munadi was ever conducted in respect of the land of Shri R.N. Gupta, IAS (also known as Robin Gupta) who is posted as Secretary- Commissioner, Government of Punjab and was formerly resident of House No. 192 Sector 16-A, Chandigarh". Affidavits of Gian Singh and Salochna Devi residents of village Madanpur and Moginand respectively have also been filed in support of the plea that there was no publication of the substance of the notification in the locality. Having heard Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, we are unable to accept this contention. In the reply filed by the Land Acquisition Collector-cum-SDO (Civil), Panchkula it is categorically averred that the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the National Herald (English) on 19.8.1997 and in the Jansatta (Hindi) on 19.8.1997 and that substance of the notification was also published in the locality by beat of drum. According to the respondents the munadi was made by Ram Sarup chowkidar and an entry to this effect was made at serial No. 422 dated 26.8.1997 in the daily register. Learned Deputy Advocate General produced the original records before us at the time of hearing and we find that the averments made by the Land Acquisition Collector in his reply are supported by entries in the official record. According to the entry made in the daily diary register the Chowkidar had published the substance of the notification by beat of drum in the village. As regards the affidavit filed by him that he did not publish the substance of the notification or that he did not conduct the Mushtari munadi in the village cannot be accepted in the face of the official record. It is interesting to note that in all the three affidavits filed as Annexure P-5 collectively with the writ petition the deponents have been identified by one Bhupinder P.A. to Secretary, Sports and Youth Services, Punjab which office petitioner No. 1 had held in the State Government. Petitioner No. 1 was a senior officer in the State of Punjab at the time when the land was acquired and had worked in the State of Haryana on deputation for three years and the possibility of the deponents trying to oblige him cannot be ruled out. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the first contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.