JAHRUDEEN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not only the petitioners who are victims of red-tapism, the State as an impersonal character is also irreparably injured due to casual approach of its functionaries. The facts of the case would demonstrate it. The petitioners are admittedly owners in possession of the land described in Para Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the writ petition. Their land was utilized without any acquisition by the Irrigation Department for construction of New Drain in the year 1970-71. On a hue and cry made by the landowners, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 12.01.1982 and 07.04.1982, respectively but only for the area falling in RD-25820 to RD-46700. Thereafter, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued on 16.09.1985 and 16.07.1986, for the area ranging from RD-46700 to RD-55906. Then came another set of notifications issued on 24/25.11.1998 and 04.03.1999 pertaining to the land utilized for construction and re-modeling from RD-23169 to 25820. The turn of notification in respect of the petitioners' land came when notifications dated 22.08.2003 and 02.04.2004 under Sections 4, and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act were issued but no further action was taken and the same were allowed to lapse on 01.04.2006.

(2.) No fresh acquisition process was started thereafter, compelling the petitioners to approach this Court in CWP No. 9276 of 2010 which was disposed of on 15.03.2011 by relegating them to approach the Land Acquisition Collector for disbursement of compensation.

(3.) No compensation could obviously be disbursed to them as no award was ever passed regarding the acquisition of their land.