PAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landowners have impugned the legality of their dispossession from their land by the State Government and respondent No. 4, the Government Contractor/Lessee, inter alia, on the grounds :- (i) that the provision of Rule 61 of Punjab Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 1964, is ultra vires the Constitution inter alia for the reason that it does not provide for a notice to the landowners/occupiers for the purposes of determination of compensation, and (ii) that the Government had determined the amount of compensation without giving any notice to the petitioners.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, i.e. State of Haryana, the District Industries Officer, Bhiwani and the Collector Bhiwani respectively, it has been asserted that the constitutional vires of Rule 61 have been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Khushal Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1966 1 ILR(P&H) 166. The written statement, however, is silent in regard to the assertion in the petition that the compensation had been determined without notice to the petitioners.

(3.) The counsel appearing for the respondent-State was, therefore, directed to produce the official record to enable the Court to see as to whether the order determining compensation had been passed with or without the prior notice to the petitioners. Counsel for the respondent-State Mr. Verma after looking into the record fairly conceded that no notice had been sent to the petitioners either before or at the time of determining of the compensation amount nor they had been afforded any hearing.