BUDH RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is an occupier of land which had been acquired by Notification No. 3603-agriculture-II(5)-75/9673, dated June 13, 1975, in the revenue area of Rewari, District Mohindergarh, and he was not served with a notice under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act. Shri H.S. Gill, learned District Attorney, Haryana, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has admitted that no such notice was served upon the petitioner. Annexures P-3/1 and P-4/1 issued to the petitioner by the Land Acquisition Collector show that he was in possession of a part of the acquired land. Notice under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act was thus necessary to be served upon him.

(2.) Mr. H.S. Gill, District Attorney, states that the proceedings can be started from the stage of the notice under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, after it is served upon the petitioner. In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the State, the proceedings from the stage of notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act are quashed. The Acquisition Collector should now serve notice upon the petitioner under section 9(3) of the Act and thereafter give his award in accordance with law about the land found in possession of the petitioner. In view of this, the petition succeeds.

(3.) The parties are left to bear their own costs.