JALALUDDIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, prayer is for quashing the notifications dated 31.5.1976 and 3.8.1976, Annexure P-1 and P-2, respectively issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "1894 Act") and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-State to resume the acquired land from respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and to return the same to the petitioners and to the original landowners.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts necessary for adjudicating the present writ petition are that the petitioners were owners in possession of land measuring killa Nos. 6/2, 7/2, 8/2, 9/2, 12/2, 12/3, 15, 12/4, 13, 14/1 M. No. 72 situated within the revenue estate of village Badkhal, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. It was pleaded that State of Haryana vide notification dated 31.5.1976 issued under Section 4 of 1894 Act followed by notification dated 3.8.1976 under Section 6 of the 1894 Act acquired the land measuring 26 acres including the land of the petitioners for setting up of Drive-in-Cinema at Badkhal for public purpose. The petitioners filed objections against the acquisition but all went in vain as their land was acquired. It was further pleaded that on coming to know that the proposal for the development of Drive-in-Cinema at Badkhal had been dropped, they moved an application for return/restoring of their land to them. The case of the petitioners for restoring the land to them was recommended but respondent No. 1 did not agree and ordered for using the land for agriculture purposes. It was further pleaded that when respondent Nos. 1 and 2 failed to get the land of respondent No. 3, then the State had exchanged the acquired land of the petitioners with the land of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 vide deed of exchange dated 7.5.1993 (Annexure P-6). Therefore, the possession of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was that of a tress passer. It was further pleaded that as the land was not being utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, the petitioners and other land owners have every right to get back their land as the petitioners are prepared to pay back the compensation received so far with reasonable interest thereon. The petitioners have made various requests/applications to the respondent-authorities for restoration of their land but no action has yet been taken. However, on their application, the Deputy Commissioner Faridabad vide order dated 18.10.1995 had stayed the alienation of the acquired land. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) RESPONDENTS No. 3 and 4 and also filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the petitioners being Muslims and not followers of the Mandir have no locus standi to allege that the exchange deed was not valid. The other averments made in the writ petition were also denied and prayer for dismissal of the writ petition was made.