BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Baldev Singh and others seek a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash notification dated 9.6.1982 issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 sub clause (2) (c) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) as also follow up declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 30.6.1982.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the petitioners are owners of land as detailed in para 2 of the writ petition situated in village Balu, Tehsil Narwana District Jind. It is their case that the land is situated near the village "abadi" is very fertile and valuable. The State of Haryana, respondent No. 1 herein, earlier too issued notification under Section 4 read with Sections 17(2)(c) and 17(4) of the Act vide which the land of Kishan Chand alongwith some other co-villagers was acquired. The aforesaid notification was issued on 24.5.1976. On the same day, another notification was issued by the respondent-State under Section 6 of the Act declaring that the land mentioned therein had been acquired for public purpose i.e., allotment of residential plots to landless/homeless Harijans and members of Backward Classes in the village. The right holders affected by the aforesaid notification came up in this Court Writ Petition No. 4362 of 1976. The Deputy Advocate General Haryana made a statement on 8.9.1976 before the Motion Bench that the State Government was considering the withdrawal of the impugned notifications. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the State, the petitioners did not further agitate the matter and the writ petition was, therefore, dismissed. In consonance with the statement made by the Deputy Advocate General notifications referred to above were withdrawn. However, that was not the end of the matter as once again the land was acquired vide notifications dated 31.1.1977 Annexures P.3 and P4. Once again the issuance of notifications acquiring the land was challenged by the affected right holders in Civil Writ Petition No. 941 of 1977. After notice of motion, even the notifications issued on 31.1.1977 were withdrawn. On 3.5.1977, the Bench hearing the matter passed the following order:,

(3.) It requires to be mentioned that when the land was acquired for the second time, the public purpose was the same as was mentioned in the notification issued prior in point of time. The respondent-State did not relent after withdrawing the notifications dated 31.1.1977 as after about five years, once again it issued notifications under Section 4 of the Act which was published in the Haryana Government Gazette on 9.6. 1982 and once again the public mentioned in the notification was the same. Copy of this notification has been annexed with the records of this case as Annexure P.5. Once again in the very notification, a declaration was made that the urgency for the purpose was such that the provisions of Section 5A of the Act should be dispensed with. The follow up declaration came into being on 30.6.1982 (Annexure P.6). It is these notifications, as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment, that have been challenged in the present petition.