RAM PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the land acquisition proceedings initiated vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 22.10.1997, Annexure P-1, followed by declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 16.10.1998, Annexure P-2. The only ground seeking setting aside of the notification issued under Section 4 and follow up declaration, as referred to above, is that the petitioners, who are the brothers, owned only 400 sq. yards land. On the land, subject matter of acquisition, they have made pucca construction of residential houses along with a temple, where hundreds of devotees come and pay their obeisance and the authorities of Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the HUDA'), for the benefit of which the land was to be acquired, has clearly mentioned that this small piece of land would not interfere in the development plan and may be, only a small portion, out of the land, would be required for a small road and despite such recommendation, the State Government has ultimately acquired the land as, the petitioners received notice under Section 9 of the Act on 27.9.2000, even though earlier to it, the petitioners had made number of representations seeking exemption of the land from the acquisition on the basis that a construction had since already been raised and a recommendation had been made by the appropriate authorities to exempt the same.

(2.) PLEADINGS pertaining to the construction have been made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition wherein, it has been stated that the petitioners are co- owners in possession of 400 sq. yards of land, comprised in Khewat No. 236/251, Khasra No. 22//3/3/10 and 3/3/11, situated in village Carterpuri, District Gurgaon and both the petitioners, who are the brothers, have constructed their houses in the land, subject matter of acquisition, since the year 1992 and are living in the said houses eversince 1992. It is then pleaded that in the year 1995-96, the petitioners constructed a small temple, which is existing in their land. Insofar as pleadings with regard to the recommendations made by the HUDA authorities are concerned, same are made in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the writ petition, which read thus:-

(3.) INSOFAR as, thus, construction of the petitioners is concerned, the same is stated to be of a godown, which was being used for storing cement. Insofar as, temple is concerned, the same, according to even the pleadings made in the writ petition, is made on a small piece of land and as per the written statement, same was constructed after declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued. During the course of arguments, Mr. Punchhi, learned counsel representing the petitioners, has shown us photographs of the construction. The construction is of a room only which too appears to be in dilapidated condition, which would fortify the averments made in the written statement that the same was used as a godown for storing the cement. The photographs of the temple would also clearly demonstrate that the same is in a very very small area and once again, the averments made in the written statement appears to be correct that the same came about after declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made. The first ground that has been pressed into service for quashing the notification, namely, that there did exist construction in the shape of residential houses and a temple at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, thus, needs to be repelled. Insofar as, however, the contention raised on the basis of exemption granted by the HUDA authorities is concerned, and pleadings with regard to which have been mentioned in paragraphs 6 and 7 and which we have reproduced in earlier part of this judgment, no proper reply was forthcoming to the same, in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3 and, inasmuch as, the averments made in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 were also not conveying much sense, the respondents were asked to file additional affidavit. Before we may advert to the contents of the additional affidavit, we would like to mention that insofar as, the petitioners are concerned, no reports or orders exempting the land from the array of acquisition have been brought on record even though, averments have been made that reports favouring exemption were made by the HUDA authorities. In the additional affidavits of the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Haryana, Gurgaon, dated 7.5.2003, which has since now been filed, it has been averred that even though, on filing of affidavit by the petitioners, the deponent made an enquiry from the office of respondent No. 5 from where, it was learnt that the land-owners had made representation to the Government for releasing their land and the Government had asked for report from the HUDA, Gurgaon on their representation. It has been averrred that the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon obtained the report of the District Town Planner, Gurgaon, in this regard, who recommended release of the land on give and take basis as, the same was affecting one 10 meter wide proposed service road. However, recommendation dated 21.3.2000 was not accepted by the Government as, the same was affecting the service road.