NAWAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE precise connotation to be attached to the phrase 'Project of public utility' as used in Sub -section (4) of Section 58 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, is an issue of some significance, which is before us on a reference. The point arises from facts which are not in dispute.

(2.) ON the 9th July, 1973 the State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring an area including the land of the Petitioner. Therein it was declared as follows:

(3.) FOR reasons, all of which are not evident on the record, the case could not apparently be listed for an early hearing as directed. Meanwhile the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 (hereinafter called the Act) was enacted by Parliament and received the assent of the President on the 18th of December, 1976, and was published in the Gazette of the same date. The Act empowered the Central Government to appoint different dates by notification for the enforcement of its various provisions. In exercise of that power, the Central Government enforced Section 58 of the Act which is the relevant provision with effect from the 1st of February, 1977. Apparently thereafter the Respondents initiated proceedings to take possession of the acquired land and the Petitioner then moved the present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Herein he averred that despite the continuance of the stay order, the officers and the employees of the Estate Office, Faridabad Complex along with certain policemen came to the premises on the 19th of April, 1977 at about 4.30 p.m. and wanted to take possession of the same. On a representation being made to the Estate Officer, the applicant was informed that on account of the recent changes in the Constitution and apparently in view of the provisions of Section 58(4) of the Amendment Act aforementioned, the Respondent -State was proceeding to take possession in all cases of acquisition. It was pointed out that unless the Petitioner could secure a fresh stay order from the High Court, they would proceed to acquire possession of his premises as well.