SATBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil writ petition has been filed challenging the notifications dated 17.09.2011 and 09.02.2012 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the objections of the petitioners filed under Section 5A of the Act were not taken into consideration. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that for the purpose of extension of metal road which goes from Patsama to Gandhara falling in Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak, the notifications were issued. The road was extended on one side of which the petitioners were owners. The notification dated 17.09.2011 under Section 4 of the Act was not published in the newspapers which circulated in the area and the fact did not come to the notice of the villagers whose land was to be acquired. The petitioners had filed objections on 15.10.2011 before the Land Acquisition Collector, who decided the objections of the petitioners and thereafter the notification was published under Section 6 of the Act. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the land should have been acquired on both sides of the road and proper procedure had not been followed.

(2.) In the reply filed, plea taken is that petitioner No. 1-Satbir had expired and his L.Rs. had received the compensation without any protest and the petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground as his L.Rs. had received payment of award on 16.08.2012 without any protest. The petitioners have not filed any objections under Section 5A of the Act though the notification had been published in the daily newspapers in Aaj Samaj (Hindi) on 10.12.2011 and in Sunday Pioneer (English) on 11.12.2011. The award had been announced on 27.07.2012 and the proceedings were complete. The land acquired was only three karams in width. The land comprising in Rectangle and Killa No. 125/11 had not been acquired due to there being a well and Dharamshala in that Rectangle and Killa number.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners stated that he did not wish to press the petition regarding petitioner No. 1 and his L.Rs. since he had expired and his L.Rs. had received the compensation. However, a perusal of the memo of parties go on to show that petitioners No. 2 and 3 are sons of Sultan and brothers of deceased petitioner No. 1-Satbir. The objections filed by them which have been appended are dated 03.05.2012, which is after the notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 09.02.2012. Once the petitioners themselves had opted not to file the objections within the prescribed period fixed under Section 5A of the Act, they cannot now object to the acquisition. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Talson Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & others, 2007 13 SCC 186 held that if a person had not filed objections, he cannot challenge the proceedings by way of a writ petition thereafter. The relevant para read as under:-