KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners impugn the acquisition of their land vide notification Annexures P.6 and P.7 under sections 4 and 6 respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) on the following grounds :-

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length I, however, find that the petitioners deserve to succeed on the very first ground mentioned above and in view of that I need not express any opinion on the other two grounds raised on their behalf. As has already been indicated above, the land in question is being acquired for the purposes of the Food Corporation of India for constructing godowns. Now it is a purpose which can be said to be so pressing or urgent that the authorities concerned could not even afford to hear the objections of the claimants in terms of section 5-A of the Act ? This is how the Supreme Court has expressed itself on this aspect of the matter in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, 1980 AIR(SC) 319:-

(3.) To my mind, the ratio of the above-noted judgment fully applies to the facts of this case and I am of the considered opinion that the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired was not so pressing or urgent that it could not brook even a month's delay in affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-claimants.