PIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PIPAL Singh and five others, through present petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash notification (Annexure P-1) dated 10.4.2003, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as also declaration (Annexure P-4) dated 30.6.2003 issued under Section 6 of the Act.

(2.) BRIEF facts, as projected in the present petition, reveal that the respondents issued notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring the land of the petitioners and others for digging of "Rangoi Channel", admittedly a public purpose. It is the case of the petitioners that on 22.4.2003, they filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act making a grievance that the notification suffers from numerous infirmities and illegalities as also is against the public policy. Before, declaration under Section 6 of the Act could be issued, the petitioners herein filed Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 7725 of 2003, challenging notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 10.4.2003, which was dismissed by this Court on 19.5.2003 by holding that the same was pre-mature as, concededly, notification under Section 6 of the Act had not been issued so far. On 30.6.2003, respondents issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act and it is the case of the petitioners that the same was done without first deciding the objections filed by them under Section 5-A of the Act. Be at motion stage or now after notice has been issued to the respondents and written statement has been filed, counsel representing the petitioners only urged that no declaration under Section 6 of the Act could have been issued without first deciding objections under Section 5-A of the Act. When the matter came up for motion hearing on 11.7.2003, we passed the following order :-

(3.) PURSUANT to the order dated 6.10.2003, the respondents have produced the records. The same demonstrate beyond any shadow of doubt that the petitioners did not file any objections whatsoever. This we are concluding for the fact that whatever objections had been filed the under Section 5-A of the Act, are available on the records of the case. However, insofar as, the petitioners are concerned, no objections said to have been filed by them under Section 5-A of the Act are available on the records. There is nothing on the record to doubt the averments made in the written statement that the petitioners had not filed any objection nor there is anything available from which it can be concluded that the respondents might have intentionally destroyed the objections said to have been filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act. No case of bias, ill-will or mala fide has been made out. We may, however, mention that Civil Misc. No. 23175 of 2003 has been filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for placing on record the complaint against the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa wherein, after making a mention of the writ petition and the grounds taken in the writ petition pertaining to objections under Section 5-A of the Act and contents of the written statement denying the said facts, it has further been pleaded that the petitioners have filed a complaint against the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa, to the Hon'ble Governor, Haryana, Hon'ble Chief Minister, Haryana and the President of District Bar Association, Sirsa, stating therein that the plea taken by the respondents is totally false and mala fide. A copy of the complaint dated 30.8.2003 has also been annexed with the said application. Prayer of the petitioners is to permit letters/complaints to be brought on record of the case. The complaints are stated to be dated 30.7.2003, the matter, as mentioned above, had come up for motion hearing on 11.7.2003 whereas, the writ petition, it appears from the records of the case, was filed on 9.7.2003. It is mentioned in one of the complaints, Annexure A-1, that objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed on 22.4.2003 in the Court of D.R.O.-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa but the petitioners were not given any receipt inspite of repeated visits to the office. In the ultimate analysis, it has been prayed in the application/complainant aforesaid that the matter be got investigated and the file pertaining to the objections be recovered. If the petitioners had, indeed, filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 22.4.2003 and were not issued any receipt despite their visiting the concerned office on number of occasions, why a mention of the same was not made in the writ petition that was filed on 9.7.2003, is rather strange. We are of the view that in case, the petitioners were not issued receipt and had visited the concerned office on number of occasions to obtain a receipt, a mention of the same ought to have been made in the writ petition itself. Further, even in the complaint, Annexure A-1, it has not been mentioned as to who was inimically disposed towards the petitioners, who might have received the objections and still have some grouse against the petitioners to destroy the same. These complaints dated 30.7.20003, which came into being after the respondents had filed reply in this case, appear to have been manufactured simply with a view to prop up the petitioners' stand which is otherwise incorrect, false and totally hollow in seeking quashing of the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. Same is our view insofar as objections under Section 5-A of the Act are concerned. The same have clearly been manufactured with a view to seek favourable orders from this Court as also for getting away with costs of Rs. 20,000/- regarding which, order was passed at the motion stage itself on 11.7.2003.