JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants had challenged by way of writ petition viz. CWP No. 4866 of 1986, the validity and legality of the notifications dated October 30, 1981 and September 16, 1982 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the notice dated August 29, 1986 issued under Section 9 of the Act by which the land was sought to be acquired. That writ petition having been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have come up in the present appeal.

(2.) The appellants are the residents and landowners of village Chaura, Tehsil and District Karnal. Their land was sought to be acquired by the aforesaid notifications for a public purpose, namely "for the extension of Abadi of Village Chaura." It may be observed here that the appellants had challenged the aforesaid notifications by an earlier writ petition viz. CWP 4851 of 1982, which was dismissed by this court on February 1, 1983, against which the petitioners had filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2365 of 1983 and the same was also dismissed by the Apex Court on March 11. 1983. The second writ petition No. 4866 of 1986 was filed on September 10, 1986 and the Motion Bench had stayed the pronouncement of the award by the Land Acquisition Collector till further orders on September 11, 1986. The second writ petition was filed primarily on the ground that even after the dismissal of the writ petition and Special Leave Petition no steps were taken by the respondent State to complete the acquisition proceedings. Following points were raised by the learned counsel for the appellants petitioners before the learned Single Judge to assail the notifications.:- (i) After the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court in March, 1983 no steps were taken for completion of the proceedings for the acquisition of land. It is clear indication that the notifications were issued with a view to peg down the prices; (ii) The provisions of Section 11-A of the Act have not enlarged the time for completion of the acquisition proceedings; they have rather curtailed it; and (iii) The land was not being acquired for a public purpose. The persons for whose benefit the land is sought to be acquired own lands near the present village abadi.

(3.) Learned Single Judge finding no merit in any of the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal.