SIRI KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIRI Krishan and others through present petition filed by them under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seek a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash notifications dated 23. 2. 1989 and 22. 2. 1990 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act respectively. Siri Krishan and others through present petition filed by them under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seek a writ in the nature of Certiorari so as to quash notifications dated 23. 2. 1989 and 22. 2. 1990 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act respectively.

(2.) THE grounds for quashing the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act are many but being convinced that the respondents had taken possession of the land under acquisition in February, 1992 whereas the stay for dispossession was obtained from this Court in March 1992 and Full Bench of this Court in Nirenjan Singh and another v. State of Punjab, (1985-1)87 P. L. R. 358 (F. B.), would not' permit the petitioners to challenge the acquisition as such, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners confines the argument to an alternate p5ea raised in the writ petition that the petitioners are entitled to an alternate site in pursuance of the Government Policy Annexure P-8. It is pleaded in paragraph 18 of the writ that the petitioners were owning the land five years prior to the publication of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and their whole land in the urban estate had been acquired. They did not have any other residential or agricultural land in urban estate and they do not own any house, shop or plot in any urban estate of Panipat and they are ready and willing to pay the normal rate which is fixed by HUDA. In the written statement that has been filed on behalf of the respondents, all that has been mentioned in paragraph 5 is that detailed reply to para 1 to 24 has already been given in reply to main writ petition No. 3469 of 1992. Mr. J. S. Duhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondents candidly admits that in so far as entitlement of the petitioners for an alternate site in pursuance of. Annexure P-8 is concerned, nothing has at all been mentioned in C. W. P. No. 3469 of 1992. The Apex Court in State of U. P. v. Pista Devi, A. I. R. 1986 SC 2025 held that "although the said section not in terms applicable to the present acquisition proceedings, we are of the view that the above provision in. the Delhi Development Act contains a wholesome principle which should be followed by all Developed Authorities throughout the country when they acquire large tracts of land for the purposes of land development in urban areas. We hope and trust that the Meerut Development Authority, for whose benefit the land in question has been acquired will as far as practicable provide a house site or shop site of reasonable size on reasonable terms to each of the expropriated persons who have no houses or shop buildings in the urban area in question. " It requires to be mentioned that the Supreme Court was dealing with the acquisition of land for development of area by Meerut Development Authority which authority in turn had provided no scheme for rehabilitating the oustees whose lands had been acquired. Keeping in view such a policy made by Delhi Development Authority, the aforequoted observations were made. In this case authenticity of policy decision Annexure P-8 has not been denied. It has clearly been mentioned in Annexure P-8 that plots to the oustees may be offered if the land proposed to be acquired is under the ownership of oustees for a continuous period of five years prior to the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and if 75% of the total land owned by the land owners in that Urban Estate is acquired. How much land should be offered as an alternate site has also been mentioned in the policy Annexure P-8. The petitioners are, thus, dearly entitled to be allotted a plot of the size that they deserve according to policy Annexure P8 and therefore, a direction is issued to the respondents to accommodate them in pursuance of policy Annexure P-8 either in Urban Estate Sector 17, Panipat or in any other urban estate in Panipat. Let this exercise be done within three months.