BHUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of notification dtd. 2/6/2004 (Annexure P-5) issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894'), and, also seek the quashing of notification dtd. 31/5/2005 issued under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1894 (Annexure P-6). Furthermore, the petitioners also seek the quashing of the notification dtd. 28/7/2005 (Annexure P-7) issued under Sec. 4 of the Act of 1894, and, also seek the quashing of the notification dtd. 24/7/2006 issued under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1894 (Annexure P-12). Grounds raised in the instant petition

(2.) The grounds, as raised in the instant petition by the petitioners, are that the petitioners are owners of land comprised in khasra Nos. 20//24/3; 22//4 min, 5 min, 7 min, 8 min, 13 min, 14 min, 18 min and 26, situated in village Sarai Alawardi, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It is further averred in the instant petition that the land in dispute is in close vicinity of the Air Force Unit No. 54 Air Store Park and a part of the land in dispute is within the restricted zone, as declared under the provisions of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 (for short 'the Defence Act'). On 29/3/1996, the respondent concerned, issued a notification dtd. 29/3/1996 under Sec. 4 of the Act of 1894 for acquiring around 60 acres of land in villages concerned. Petitioner No. 1 along with others approached this Court by filing CWP-1997 of 1998, rather challenging the said notification, but the said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dtd. 6/3/2000, on the ground that the State Govt. had decided to acquire only part of the land which fell within 30 meter road. It is further averred in the instant petition that thereafter the impugned notifications Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6 became issued to acquire over 80 acres of land in the villages concerned. Thereafter, on 28/7/2005, the respondent concerned, again issued a notification under Sec. 4 of the Act of 1894 for acquiring around 15 acres of lands in the villages concerned. It is also averred in the petition, that petitioner No. 3 could not file objections under Sec. 5-A of the Act of 1894, whereas, petitioner No. 1 and 2 filed the objections under Sec. 5-A of the Act of 1894. However, they were not afforded an opportunity of hearing on the said objections, and, thereafter a notification under Sec. 6 of the Act of 1894, became issued on 24/7/2006. Contentions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners makes an argument, that with evidently the subject matter lands, falling within the restrictive zone, thereby their utilizations, thus by the acquiring authority, thus for purportedly facilitating the public project, but would not become ably facilitated. The said argument becomes premised on a judgment, made by this Court in case titled as 'B.B.Yadav Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in 2007 (3) Land L.R. 585. Apparently, the averred challenge made in the instant writ petition becomes also rested on a premise similar to the one which becomes orally addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents