LUXMI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge has been made to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-State by invoking the urgency provisions as contained in Section 17(2)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short, 'the Act').

(2.) A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 5.12.2005 and a huge chunk of land measuring 8129 kanals and 3 marlas (1016 acres, 1 kanal and 3 marlas) was sought to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, "Industrial, recreational, and other public utility services and to develop an integrated Industrial Complex in a planned manner and for extension of Industrial Development Centre, Bawal, by Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited in Jaliawas, Asalwas, Suthani, Karnawas, Suthana, Chirhara, Banipur, Bawal, Fatuhera, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari. The above notification was followed by another notification dated 13.3.2006 issued under Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) SHRI Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the very fact that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 5.12.2005 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act had been issued on 13.3.2006, i.e. after more than three months shows no urgency which is also borne out from the purpose of the acquisition. Shri Jain urged that the inordinate delay in between the issuance of two notifications should be taken as a reflection of the fact that there is no urgency to acquire the land in question and that the provisions of Section 17(1) and (2) of the Act have been invoked in a mala fide manner. He contended that the right to file objections is akin to a fundamental right and cannot be taken away and interfered with lightly. Learned counsel submitted that since the action of the State has resulted in depriving the petitioners of an opportunity to file objections, the impugned notifications may be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 2004(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 178 - wherein it was held as under :-