SAWHNEY TYRE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner M/s. Sawhney Tyre Private Limited is aggrieved by the notifications dated November 4, 1977 (Annexure P-2) and dated November 1, 1980 (Annexure P-3) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On August 24, 1973, the State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act which was published in the Government gazette dated September 18, 1973 expressing its intention to acquire 238.05 acres of land situated within the revenue estate of Mewala Maharajpur for the purpose of the development of Sectors 31, 32, 35 and 36 as Industrial Area in Ballabgarh Faridabad Complex. However, no further proceedings were taken. As a result, the notification lapsed. Thereafter, another notification dated November 4, 1977 was issued under Section 4 of the Act for the same purpose. This was followed by a notification dated November 1, 1980 under Section 6 of the Act. Copies of these two notifications have been produced on record as Annexures P-2 and P-3. The petitioner avers that no further action was taken by the State on Haryana till September 28, 1983. Consequently, the petitioner presumed that like the notification of September 1973, the proceedings in pursuance to even the subsequent notification have been dropped. As a result, the petitioner purchased an area measuring 9,285 square yards which is equivalent to 15 kanals 7 marlas from six different persons by six separate sale deeds. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on October 1, 1983. On December 8, 1983, the Land Acquisition Collector issued notice under Section 9 of the Act in respect of the land purchased by the petitioner. On May 2, 1984 the award was announced. Apprehending dispossession from the land in question, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present petition with a prayer that the notifications dated November 4, 1977 and November 1, 1980 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) be quashed.

(3.) A written statement of behalf of the respondents has been filed by the Director Urban Estate/Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority. The claim made in the petition has been controverted.