NEELAM GULATI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 read with Sec. 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the Act") dated dated 27.9.2007 and 27.12.2007 Annexures P.2 and P.3 respectively and award dated 10.4.2008, Annexure P.4. Prayer has also been made for directing the respondents to release their land on the ground that the land has not been utilised even after the expiry of about six years for the public purpose for which it was acquired i.e. for constructing Storm Water Disposal at Rahad Johar, Rohtak.

(2.) A few facts relevant for adjudication of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioners purchased certain land falling in Khasra No.7933 within the municipal limits of District Rohtak and registered sale deeds were executed in their favour. Some of the petitioners even constructed houses on their respective plots. Vide notification dated 24.10.2006, Annexure P.1, the State Government declared certain khasra numbers of Mauja, Rohtak, Hadbast No.74, Tehsil and District Rohtak to be unbuilt area. The land of the petitioners falls in Khasra No.7933 adjoining the declared unbuilt area. On 27.9.2007, the State Government issued notification, Annexure P.2 under Sec. 4 read with Sec. 17 of the Act for acquisition of the land including Khasra No.7933 for the public purpose i.e. for constructing Storm Water Disposal at Rahad Johar, Rohtak. It was mentioned in the notification that as per Sec. 17(4) of the Act, provisions of Sec. 5A of the Act shall not apply to this acquisition. On 27.12.2007, the respondents issued notification, Annexure P.3 under Sec. 6 read with Sec. 17 of the Act. Thereafter, award dated 10.4.2008, Annexure P.4 was passed. Grievance of the petitioners is that inspite of the expiry of so much time, the land has not been utilised by the Government for the public purpose for which it was acquired. The petitioners served legal notice dated 22.10.2012, Annexure P.7 for release of their land. Having received no response, they have filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to dispute that the petitioners had received the compensation. It was also not disputed that the possession had also been taken from the petitioners by the State. In such a situation, under Sec. 16 of the Act, the land in dispute had vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Sec. 16 of the Act reads as under:-