SANTOSH BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have laid a challenge to the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for acquiring the land for the "development and utilization of land as residential, commercial and industrial area in Sector 10, 11 and 12 (Part I), Ambala Cantt." of village Nanhera. For the said purpose, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter known as 'the Act') was issued on 4.10.2000 and was published on 13.12.2000. This was followed by another notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 6.12.2001.

(2.) The petitioners have challenged these proceedings on the ground that their objections under Section 5-A of the Act were not heard and since the compliance of the provisions of Section 5-A is mandatory, hence the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated. They also submitted that they had raised 'A' Class construction on the plots of 7 Marlas each which they had purchased and the constructed area should have been released from acquisition. Since their objections were not heard, hence this has resulted in grave injustice to the petitioners as their built up houses are now sought to be acquired. Apart from this, they also submitted that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner by releasing the lands of certain other similarly situated persons while their lands have been subjected to acquisition. The respondents in this manner have resorted to a policy of pick and choose which is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there was no violation of any provision of the law. The entire acquisition had been done in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that proper hearing was afforded to the petitioners before the notification under Section 6 was issued. They also submitted that the acquisition proceedings were complete and the award in respect of the land had been announced on 11.9.2003 and the possession of the land had also been taken by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for whose benefit the land was acquired. The possession of only such lands has not been taken which were subject-matter of interim directions granted by the competent courts. It was also pleaded that similar writ petitions against the same acquisition have been dismissed and the present writ petition should also be dismissed on this score. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record as well.