GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2014, passed by respondent No. 1, notifications dated 23.8.2007 & 21.8.2008 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the Act") and award dated 19.8.2010, Annexures P.4, P.1 to P.3 respectively. Further prayer has been made for releasing the land of the petitioner as has been done in the case of other similarly situated persons. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.8.2007, Annexure P.1 for acquisition of land for a public purpose, namely for the development of residential and commercial Sector 9, Safidon for the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The petitioner filed detailed objections under Section 5A of the Act. Without considering the objections, the respondent authorities issued notification under Section 6 of the Act on 21.8.2008, Annexure P.2. Award was announced on 19.8.2010, Annexure P.3. The petitioner submitted representation dated 8.11.2013 to the respondents for releasing only four marlas land/plot. He even approached this Court by filing CWP No. 7315 of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.4.2014 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by passing a speaking order in accordance with the government policies within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The said representation was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 13.10.2014, Annexure P.4. The petitioner again sent representation dated 10.2.2015, Annexure P.5 to the respondents that his claim was only for release of 4 marlas of land. Having received no response, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) ONCE the land had been acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the development of residential and commercial Sector 9, Safidon, we do not find any justification to accept the prayer of the petitioner for release of his land. It clearly falls within the domain of the State to decide whether the land which is being acquired for public purpose would suit the said public purpose. It is only when the action of the State is actuated by malafides that the same would be amenable to judicial review. A Division Bench of this Court in Sampuran Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, : 2007 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 65 : 2007 (1) PLR 349 had held as under: -