DEVENDRA SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the notifications dated 10.01.2011 and 11.05.2011 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'The Act') vide which the land of the petitioners has been acquired on the ground that there has been violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 5A of the Act. The pleaded case of the petitioners, who are 22 in number, is that they are owners in possession of land measuring 227 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Dharuhera, Tehsil and District Rewari as per the revenue record attached. Part of the land was owned by Rao Shamsher Singh, who was the owner in possession of some part of the said land prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and who died on 12.02.2011. The present petition is thus being filed by his L.Rs. namely petitioners No. 1 to 7, who inherited the same by natural succession. The notification dated 10.01.2011 was issued for the public purpose namely for construction of canal based water works in Dharuhera town for acquiring 30 acres 6 kanals 17 marlas of land. The notification was published in the newspapers on 15.01.2011 namely Mail today (English) and Aaj Samaj (Hindi). The said newspapers had either no circulation or minimal circulation in the town where the notified land was situated. Certificate issued by M/s. Sharma News Agency, Dharuhera was annexed to plead that Mail Today has 0% circulation whereas Aaj Samaj sold 20 copies which were kept on the counter for retail sale out of which an average of 8 to 10 copies were sold daily. Therefore, the sale was less than 1% (0.57%) of all Hindi newspapers. Petitioners No. 1 to 7 had filed objections on 04.03.2011, petitioners No. 8 and 9 filed objections on 25.02.2011 whereas petitioners No. 10 to 23 filed their objections on 01.03.2011. It was alleged that in the said objections the petitioners have pleaded that the land falls in the commercial land use zone vide the Final Development Plan dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P -2) and the area sought to the acquired was far excess than the total required land for the said public purpose. More than 22 acres of vacant land belonging to the Panchayat/Municipality was available just 800 meters south of the land of the petitioners which was of lesser economic value and could be well utilized for the said purpose. It was accordingly pleaded that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners since the petitioners did not receive notice for hearing from respondent No. 2. Information had been sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 03.08.2011 had stated that since the objections had been received beyond limitation, therefore, no notice was issued for grant of personal hearing.

(2.) IN the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, the defence taken by the respondents was that the Dharuhera town houses population of more than 1 lac persons and is an upcoming industrial hub and situated in the southern State of Haryana adjacent to the Rajasthan State. The town was suffering from chronic shortage of drinking water and in order to provide drinking water to the residents in the above town and the nearby area, the plan to acquire the land for construction of canal based water works was proposed. The construction was for the benefit and in the interest of public at large and the action of the respondents was neither arbitrary, illegal, unjust or ultra vires of the Statute. The plant would cater to the need of supply of drinking water for the next 30 years and is aimed at catering to the need for supply of drinking water. It was further stated that there existed only 4 tube -wells and the quality of water was deteriorating day by day. The water of tubewells would not remain fit for human consumption in the near future. A defence was also raised that the Government would also suffer a huge loss if the possession of this land is not granted for the construction of canal based water supply scheme since Ductile iron pipes of various sizes had been purchased and amount of 18 crores had been deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector for payment of compensation. The area was adjacent to Sabhi river and was most suitable for water works since it would facilitate the flow of water smoothly and without any heavy substantive cost. It was admitted that the publication was made in the Mail Today and Aaj Samaj on 15.01.2011 as per the provisions of the Act and there was no procedural lapse. The notification under Section 6 of the Act had also been published in Mail today on 11.05.2011, in Aaj Samaj on 17.05.2011 and the Pioneer (English) on 18.05.2011. It was submitted that it was wrong that the petitioners could not come to know the same and as such could not file the objections under Section 5A of the Act within time. They had filed objections after expiry of the limitation period and the same were rejected as per law.

(3.) IN replication, the petitioner placed on record copy of the recommendation report of respondent No. 2 as Annexure P -20 wherein, it has been recorded that the objections filed by the petitioners were received on 25.02.2011, 01.03.2011 and 04.03.2011. Reference was also made to the Ra -pat Roznamcha No. 367 dated 07.02.2011 where the proclamation of the impugned notification was made by way of beat of drum (munadi) under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the petitioners filed objections within 30 days of the entry of the said Rapat Roznamcha. If the period of 30 days was taken from the causing of the public notice of the substance of the subject notification in the locality where the land is situated, the said objections filed by the petitioners were well within limitation and since no opportunity of hearing had been granted, the entire proceedings were liable to be set aside. The official respondents chose not to file any counter to the replication wherein, the additional fact of the substance of notification being done by way of public notice by way of beat of drum (munadi) had been referred to.