SURESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for quashing award Annexure P5 dated 18/11/1995 passed by Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Faridabad (respondent No. 2).

(2.) The petitioners are owners in possession of land measuring 62 kanals 18 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 121/114/2, 17, 1821, 19/3, 21/2, 22/2, 23, 24/1, 24/2, 131/1, 2, 3/1, 10/1 situated in Village Sihi, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. They claim to have constructed a factory building, residential quarters, godowns etc. with a boundary wall on three sides on the land in dispute. To substantiate this assertion, they have placed on record copies of judgments dated 6.9.1985 (Annexure PI) passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Faridabad and dated 28.5.1988 (Annexure P2) passed by Additional Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad in the suits for permanent injunction filed by them against Faridabad Complex Administration for restraining the latter from demolishing their construction.

(3.) The above described land of the petitioners was sought to be acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 20.5.1974 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), but after issuance of the initial notification, no further step was taken in that direction. In the next 8 years, two more notifications including the one dated 8.6.1982 were issued for acquisition of their land, but the matter was riot pursued. After a gap of one decade, the State Government issued notification dated 23.11.1992 under Section 4 which was followed by notification dated 19.11.1993 issued under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of the land in question as a part of 163.83 acres of land acquired for development and utilisation thereof for residential and commercial purposes (Sector 2 Faridabad). The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and then instituted C.W.P. No. 4557 of 1994 for quashing of the two notifications by asserting that the same had not been published as per the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. The review application field by the petitioners was also dismissed by this Court.