SUBHAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBHASH Khan has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate Writ for quashing the Notification under Section 4 and Notification under Section 6 contained in Annexures P-1 and P-3 and further proceedings under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act ).

(2.) THE petitioner is proprietor of land measuring 3 Kanals 10 Marias mentioned in para 2 of the petition situated in the revenue estate of village Shikrawa, Tehsil Ferozepur Jhirka, District Gurgaon Respondent No. 1 issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Act which was published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated 25-9-1981. No proclamation was made in the locality of the village or on the spot regarding this Notification, though it was learnt that a fictious report was entered in the Roznamcha of the patwari dated 30-10-1981 The petitioner was unaware of the issuance of Notifications and could not file objections under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act A Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Gazette of 3-9-1982 and although no proclamation was made regarding this Notification a report was made in the Roznamcha of the petitioner which was dated 19-10-1982. The petitioner came to know about issuance of some notice from the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) in the second week of November, 1982 and on enquiry found that some proceedings had been taken for acquisition of his land. The petitioner alleged that so far no award had been made nor possession of the Land had been taken. The issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act was illegal unconstitutional and arbitrary. Notification was published in the Gazette on 25 9 1981 and proclamation was made in the locality on 30-10-1981. Due to non publication of Notification in the locality by way of 'munadi' he was denied an appropriate opportunity of making objections under Section 5-A of the Act and whole proceedings regarding acquisition deserved to be quashed on this ground.

(3.) NO return was filed by the respondent though opportunities were granted for submitting the same.