BRAHAMPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge here is. to the notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on the ground of discrimination.

(2.) Land measuring 132.06 acres situated within the revenue estate of village Meola Maharajpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad was notified under Section 4 of the Act, proposing its acquisition for public purpose, namely, for development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area of Sector 46, Part-II of the Faridabad-Ballabgarh Controlled Area, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The persons interested in the land could file objections to the acquisition within 30 days of the publication of the notification. The petitioner did not file any objection against the proposed acquisition though his land was included in the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Some other landowners seem to have filed objections to the proposed acquisition. The State Government after considering the matter issued final notification dated July 7, 1989, under Section 6 of the Act acquiring the entire land measuring 132.06 acres as any notified under Section 4 of the Act. Notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 are Annexures, P-3 and P-4 to the writ petition. The petitioner and his co-owners had raised certain construction in the shape of rooms in an area measuring 132' x 165' on a part of the acquired land with the permission of the Faridabad Complex Administration. According to the petitioner, these houses were constructed on Khasra No. 11 Rectangle No. 88 situated contiguous to the abadi of village Meola Maharajpur and he alongwith other members of the family is residing therein. The case of the petitioner further is that an area measuring 86.48 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of village Meola Maharajpur, was earlier proposed to be acquired in the year 1986 for the same purposes wherein the land of the petitioner was not notified for acquisition being under houses. It is in these premises, the acquisition has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that under the policy framed by the State Government for acquiring the land, it has been provided that the lands on which the buildings have been constructed be not acquired and the respondents in this case have failed to follow this policy while issuing notifications, Annexures P-3 and P-4 and by acquiring the land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra No. 11 of Rectangle No. 88. It is in this context, contended that the persons who have built their houses in the land owned by them cannot be deprived of their residences by resorting to the process of acquitting of land in the pick and choose manner by violating the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) It will be proper to notice at this stage that a local commissioner was appointed by this Court on an application moved by the petitioner as it was contented that the construction of the buildings on the land of the petitioner was of 'A' category but the same was denied and was alleged to be of 'C' category, in the written statement. Besides the covered area of the building was also disputed. The local Commissioner submitted her report dated February 25, 1992 and she on the basis of visual inspection, reported that their existed houses in Khasra No. 11/88 on an area of 7144 square feet and that the construction existing thereon was of 'A' category and was not in any way inferior to the construction of houses in Khasra Nos. 5/2 and 6.