RAM GOPAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners impugn the validity of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on March 8, 1989 and March 7, 1990 respectively. The primary ground of challenge is that the petitioners were not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing and that the State Government cannot acquire land on which construction has been raised "for the purpose of development and utilization of land for providing plots to other persons." It has been further averred that the action of the State in including the land in dispute i.e. Khasra No. 619 (0-8 Biswas), over which the petitioners have constructed rooms, installed tubewell and boundary walls all around it since 1986, in the notification Annexures P-1 and P-2 for acquiring the land, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." The petitioner further state that the respondent No. 2 has already made the award, but they have not" so far been paid them amount compensated (of compensation) awarded by respondent in respect of the land in dispute." On these premises, it has been claimed that the impugned notifications be quashed.

(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent by the Land Acquisition Collector. It has been inter alia averred that a number of writ petitions against these notifications, including CWP Nos. 6128 and 6879 of 1990 have already been dismissed. It has been further averred that an award in respect of the entire land was announced on March 14, 1991. The respondents have taken possession of the land on the same day and handed it over to the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon. Accordingly to the respondents, the amount of compensation has also been paid to the petitioner except of the land bearing Khasra Number 619... due to the dispute about the ownership of the land." The averment that the petitioners have raised construction over the land in dispute has been denied. It has been stated that "there was no construction over the land in dispute at the time of notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act. The land in dispute was completely vacant and there was no construction." The averment that no notice of hearing under Section 5-A of the Act was issued has also been denied. According to the respondents, a notice was served on the petitioners on October 13, 1989 and Shri Tej Parkash, petitioner No. 3 appeared before the court answering respondent at the time of hearing of objections under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act on behalf of all the petitioners. The said petitioner was actually heard in accordance with law and in token of hearing given by the answering respondent put his signatures on 20.10.89. "In paragraph 3 of the written statement, it has been mentioned that "in the land bearing Khasra Number 619 there was a Gair mumkin Tubewell with chamber, haudi and nali at the relevant time. "On these premises, the claim made in the petition has been controverted and it has been prayed that the writ petition may be dismissed. The facts as stated in the written statement have not been controverted by filing any rejoinder.

(3.) On a perusal of the record, it appears that a two-fold contention has been raised. Firstly. It has been alleged that notice of hearing was not issued to the petitioners. Secondly, it is claimed that according to the policy of the State Government, land on which construction exists cannot be acquired. Both the contentions are lacking in merit. So far as the first contention is concerned, it deserves notice that the respondents have categorically averred that notice of hearing was served on the petitioners on October 13, 1989 in pursuance to which petitioner No. 3 had actually appeared on behalf of all the petitioners. This being so, it is apparent that a false averment has been made in the writ petition.