LOGICAL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to a notification under Section 6 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') dated 13.03.2012 published on 16.03.2012 for the reason that the same is beyond the period prescribed in terms of Section 6 of the Act and to the notification dated 25.11.2011 published under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the purpose of acquisition cannot stand in view of the publication of development plans under Section 5 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 contemplating the land in question falls within the residential zone whereas notification under Section 6 of the Act is for acquisition of land for the purposes of Industrial Model Township.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that a notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 17.09.2004 by invoking the urgency provisions, thus dispensing with the right to file objections by the land owners. The present land owner challenged the said notification before this Court wherein this Court stayed dispossession of the land owners on 02.11.2004. The writ petition was allowed on 14.03.2011 quashing the urgency provisions but giving liberty to the State to proceed with the acquisition under Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the State has published two notifications under Section 6 of the Act. The first notification was published on 25.11.2011 whereas, the second notification on 16.03.2012. Notification dated 16.03.2012 is sought to be challenged on the ground that it is delayed by 43 days after excluding the period of ad interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e. by excluding the period from 02.11.2004 till 02.03.2011, therefore, such notification is illegal. It is contended that the stand of the respondents in the written statement is that the period spent in obtaining copy of the order of the Court is also required to be excluded, which is not tenable in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao and others versus State of T.N. and others, 2002 3 SCC 533. It has been held that the period of stay alone can be excluded and not the period spent in obtaining certified copies of the order of this Court. The Court held to the following effect: -