SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions, one of the fact and the other of law arise for determination in this case. The question of fact is - Is there in fact a policy decision taken by Govt. of Haryana not to acquire land on which construction has been raised prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? If answer to this question is in affirmative then the question which arises is - What is its value ? Is it statutory in nature ? Would it override the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ?

(2.) THE facts of the present case narrowly stated as per averments of the petitioners are that the petitioners are owners in possession of land measuring 2680 square yards on which houses have been constructed which are being used by the petitioners for residential and storage purposes. Government of Haryana sought to acquire total area of 369. 94 acres in Hadbast No. 1 village Karnal, including the said land and construction there-on belonging to the petitioners for development and utilisation of this land for residential and commercial purpose. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) expressing this intention was issued on 8. 2. 1989. Objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed; Ultimately, a second notification under Section 6 of the Act, was issued on 7. 2. 1990 stating that an area of 314. 97 acres was required for development of residential and commercial plots in sector 4 and 5 in Karnal. Area of about 55 acres was left out of the purview of acquisition issued under Section 6 which was earlier included in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The land belonging to the petitioners was there in the purview of acquisition, therefore, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition stating therein that there is policy of the State government not to acquire any land on which construction has been raised prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act and that this policy is more vigorously implemented particularly in case of acquisition of residential accommodation, that the notification under Section 4 of the Act issued in this case violates the declared policy of the State and, therefore, the notification issued is illegal and void and likely to be struck down as being arbitrary and contrary to the constitutional guarantee enshrined in Part-IV of the Constitution of India. The plea of discrimination has also been taken.

(3.) IN the written statement filed, the pleas taken by the petitioners have been refuted. It has been stated therein that there is no policy as such of the State Govt. not to acquire land on which construction has been made. It has further been stated that objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act were duly considered and rejected and the petitioners have not been discriminated as alleged; that the government can acquire land on which construction has been raised and landowners would be entitled to compensation for the super-structures. Plea of discrimination has been denied.