KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns the proceedings for acquisition and prays for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the notifications, issued under Sections 4 an 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that she was a co-sharer in land measuring 39 Kanals 17 Marlas bearing Rectangle No. 104, Killa No. 30/1, 30/2. The joint land was partitioned by way of a family settlement dated 16.6.1990. In the partitioned proceedings, a strip of land shown as yellow in the Site Plan (Annexure P-7), bearing Rectangle Nos. 104, Killa No. 30/1/4 and 30/2/4 fell to the share of the petitioner. A mutation bearing No. 5487 was entered in the revenue record on 29.12.1997 and consequently, the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 reflected the petitioner as owner of the aforementioned land. The petitioner's co-sharer sold their land and the vendees constructed houses. The petitioner's land is sandwiched on the north, south and east between these houses. The petitioner constructed her house 20 years ago. In the year 1983, the State of Haryana, issued a notification to acquire the land but the notification was allowed to lapse. The respondents have issued a notification under Section 4 dated 9.9.2002 proposing to acquire 328.11 acres of land for the public purpose for the development and utilisation of land, as a residential and commercial area.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's land, shown as yellow in the Site Plan (Annexure P-7), is sandwiched on three sides by houses. Thus, it belies comprehension as to what public purpose would be served by acquiring this narrow strip of land measuring 500 ft. in length and 132 ft. in width. The public purpose, namely; development of a residential and commercial complex, would not be served, by acquiring this narrow strip of land. It is further submitted that though the total area, sought to be acquired by the impugned notification is about 400 acres, as the petitioner's land is surrounded by houses that have not been acquired, it would be impossible to use the petitioner's land for the purpose, referred to in the notification.