RAGHUVANSH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the notifications dated July 22, 1988 and May 18, 1989 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) ON July 9, 1973, the State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) indicating its intention to acquire land for development of residential area in Sector 37 of Ballabgarh-Faridabad Controlled Area, Faridabad. Petitioner No. 1 who was owner of the land comprised in rectangle No. 12 Khasra No. 26 measuring 2 Kanals filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. On September 19, 1973 the State Govt. issued the notification, under Section 6 of the Act. In that notification, the petitioner's land was not included. It is averred that thereafter petitioner No. 1 executed two sale-deeds. Vide sale-deed dated January 2, 1984, land measuring 166 square yards was sold to Mohinder Singh, petitioner No. 2. Vide another sale-deed he sold an area of 160 square yards to petitioner Nos. It is averred that even petitioner No. 2 and 3 constructed their residential houses on the land.

(3.) ON July 22, 1988 the State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act notifying its intention to acquire 0. 25 acres of land for the purpose of development of residential Sector 37. The petitioners aver that they filed objections on August 12, 1988. However, on May 18, 1989, the State Govt. issued the notification under Section 6. Land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas was acquired. However, an area of 10 Marlas was left out. Aggrieved by this action, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. Notifications dated July 22, 1988 and May 18, 1989 (Annexures P-2 and P-4 with the writ petition) have been impugned inter-alia on the grounds that once the land had been released in the year 1973 and the petitioners had constructed houses thereon, the respondents were estopped from acquiring the land. It is further averred that the State Govt. has a policy not to acquire area under construction. Still further, the petitioners claim that the purpose of acquisition is to develop the land for residential purposes. This purpose has already been achieved inasmuch as the petitioners have already constructed their houses. There is no need to acquire the land and to take away their houses.