MAHABIR PARSHAD BAWANIWALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Notifications dated August 30, 1971, June 9, 1972, and March 8, 1973, and Notice dated March 15, 1973 (copies Annexures 'B' 'D', 'H', and 'J' respectively).

(2.) The facts which have given rise to this writ petition are that a pucca double storey residential house No. Y-895 situated on Railway Road, Bhiwani, within the Municipal Limits, belongs to M/s. Bhura Mal Narsing Dass. It is surrounded by a nine feet pucca wall and has got two main gates for entry therein. The petitioner has been a tenant in the house on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/-. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter Referred to as 'the 1894 Act') was issued on August 30, 1971, to the effect that the house in dispute was likely to be needed for public purpose, namely, for providing residential accommodation to the Judicial Officers at Bhiwani. In the specifications attached to the notification, the house was described as House No. Y-895, bounded as North, Road to Tosham, South, Road to Railway Station, East, Road to Bapora Gate and West, Municipal Rest House. The petitioner filed objections against the notification under Section 5-A of the Act. Respondent No. 1 later on realizing that the house in question did not fall within the definition of the expression 'land' as defined in Section 3(a) of the 1894 Act, at the instance of respondent No. 3 who was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) at Bhiwani, acting mala fide and with oblique motive, in order to bring the house in question, which is a residential house within the mischief of the 1894 Act, issued another notification under Section 4 of the Act dated June 9, 1972, wherein the house in question was described as land with structures shown as Y-895, in the records of the Municipal Committee. Thereafter, a notification was issued under Section 6 of the 1894 Act on October 30, 1972. The petitioner after the issuance of notification dated June 9, 1972, had filed objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act against the acquisition thereof. Thereafter, he filed a Civil Writ No. 3924 of 1972 challenging the validity of the notifications dated June 9, 1972, and October 30, 1972. The writ petition was disposed of by the Motion Bench of this Court with the following order on January 15, 1973 :

(3.) The writ petition has been contested by the respondents who have inter alia stated that the notifications were good and are not liable to cancellation. It is also stated that they were made bona fide and not with any oblique motive.