NAROTTAM DUTT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of an appropriate writ, for quashing the notifications dated March 20, 1970 (copy Annexure 'C') and March 31, 1970 (copy Annexure 'D') under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') respectively and directing the respondents not to interfere in the possession and enjoyment of the land belonging to the petitioners near Chutang Nallah situated in village Garhi Gosian, tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala.

(2.) The facts of this petition are that there is a barsati nallah which passes through the area of villages Gohala, Majra, Gadhauli, Khanri Khurd, Khanpur and Garhi Gosian, tehsil Jagadhri, district Ambala. It overflows in rainy season and causes damage to the crops of the neighbouring land owners. The petitioners' land which adjoins the nallah is generally flooded by it. The Government of Haryana proposed a scheme known as 'Canalisation of Chutang Nallah' by deepening and widening it to save the residents of the neighbouring areas from floods and losses. Its canalisation along with its natural course is neither in the interest of the State nor the residents of the areas as it will be more costly. In doing so, 30 acres of land of the petitioners and others shall have to be acquired; while in straightening it, only three acres of land was required. On the representations of the villagers, the scheme to straighten the nallah was approved but subsequently the same was reversed mala fide under the influence of one Ajmer Singh, son of Maluk Singh. The respondents tried to dispossess the petitioners from their land. They filed a Civil Writ No. 2609 of 1972 in this Court stating that the respondents could not do so and take forcible possession except in due course of law. It was further stated that no notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act had been issued to acquire the same. A notice of motion was issued to the respondents and the State in its return disclosed that the land of the petitioners had been acquired. While filing the writ petition, they (the petitioners) had no knowledge of the notifications under the Act. The matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Harbans Singh, C.J., and B.R. Tuli, J., which dismissed the same with the observations that it would be open to the petitioners to challenge the notifications by a separate petition if there is any infirmity in them. The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act dated March 20, 1970 (Annexure 'C') and March 31, 1970 (Annexure 'D') respectively on the ground that the notification under Section 4 of the Act does not disclose the identity of the land of the petitioners to be acquired with precision, that the index plan mentioned in the notifications was not published in the Gazette, that there was no urgency and that invoking of the urgency provision was illegal.

(3.) The respondents have contested the petition and have denied the allegations of the petitioners.