PARDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order two writ petitions namely, C.W.P. Nos. 6002 and 5379 of 1990 are being disposed of as common question of fact and law is involved. Challenged in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the notices dated 22.2.1990 (Annexure P.3 to P.5). Respondent No. 1 issued notification under Section 4 of the Act expressing his intention to acquire the specified land for public purpose namely, development and utilization of the same for residential and commercial area for Sector 23, Sonepat. The specific Khasra numbers in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') are as under :-

(2.) THE petitioners are owners in possession of Khasra Nos. 1006/124/1, 1006/124/5/1, 1006/124/6, 1094/ 125/1, 1094/125/9 and 125/11 measuring 0 K - 11 M; 0 K 9 M; 0K-4M and 14 Biswas respectively. It was further averred that the afore-mentioned Khasra Nos. were never incorporated in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act (Annexure P.1) nor in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act (Annexure P.2). However, respondent No. 3, namely Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, has issued notices to the petitioners under Section 9 of the Act directing them to attend his office for claiming their rights and compensation in respect of the Khasra numbers mentioned in this para above. The case of the petitioners is that since the land belonging to them comprised part of notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, no notice under Section 9 (Annexures P.3 to P.5) could be issued to them.

(3.) MR . I.S. Balhara, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in the absence of specific mention of Khasra numbers of the petitioners, the notification under Section 4 cannot be constructed to mean that the land of the petitioners has been acquired under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The learned counsel has argued that big Khasra or rectangle number 954 has been mentioned in the notification under section 4 with min. Nos. 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78, 124, 125, 1094/126, and thereafter big Khasra or rectangle Nos. 1095/126, 1096/126, 127 have been mentioned. According to the learned counsel, a reading by any prudent person of the notification would not reveal that Khasra Nos. 1006/124 and 1095/125, or 1094/11, were intended to be acquired. In the absence of specific mention of the Khasra numbers of the petitioners, the filing of objections by petitioners 1 to 3 has also been rendered meaningless as there was no notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Act. Moreover, petitioner No. 4 Prem Singh did not file any objection.