GOPAL KRISHAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment I propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 863, 864, 865, 866, 867, 996, 997, 1035, 1072, 1075, 1110, 1117, 1124, 1216, 1219, 1246, 1355, 1487, 1582, 1583, 1668, 1695, 1834, 3465,3466 and 3467 of 1992. The facts have been taken from the first case.

(2.) THE petitioners are the owners of land measuring about 5500 sq. yards comprised in Khasra Nos. 16/4, 6/2, 7, 6/3 and 4/2 situated in village Shahpur, Tehsil and District Ambala. The State of Haryana issued a notification dated 8th February, 1989 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) which was published in the official gazette on 8th February, 1989 proposing to acquire some land including the land of the petitioners for the development of a commercial, residential and industrial area to be developed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. It is the conceded case that the petitioners held their objections under Section 5 A of the Act within time. The report by the field staff was obtained by the Collector and thereafter he proceeded to record his report thereon and ultimately recommended to the State Government that the land be acquired and pursuant thereto the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 7th February, 1990. By this petition the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have been assailed by the petitioners on the short ground that while disposing off the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act there had been non-application of mind and non-compliance with its provisions with the result that the notification under Section 6 of the Act could not be sustained. In the written statement filed the stand of the respondent-State is that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been issued after the objections under Section 5-A of the Act had been duly considered and there had been full and complete compliance with the provisions of the section as even a personal hearing had been afforded to petitioners.

(3.) MR. Viney Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners urged on the strength of Farid Ahmad Abdul Samad and Anr. v. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Anr. , A. I. R 1976 S. C. 2095, Pt. Mehar Chand and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Anr. , 1983 P. L. J 25 and Om Parkash v. The State of Haryana and Anr. , (1988-1) P. L. R. 645 that the hearing envisaged under Section 5-A was not illusory in nature, and should be substantial in which the objections filed should be duly considered and decided. He urged that the action of the Government in acquiring the land was undoubtedly administrative in nature but the decision on the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act was a quasi-judicial act and as such the order disposing off the objections was required to be self-speaking and must display the reasons that compelled the concerned officer to dispose them off in a particular manner.