JAG RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been made to Notification No. 390-Agri.II(5)-80/2577, dated 25.2.1980, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') and notification No. 4278-Agri-II (5)-81/3711, dated 18.3.1982, under Section 6(2) of the Act, issued by the Haryana Government, Urban Estate Department, vide which the land of the petitioner was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for construction of New Grain Market, Staff Quarters and Farmer-Rest House, Hadbast No. 244 in village Nangal Chaudhary, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh, by the Market Committee, Narnaul. The facts are as follows :-

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he is owner of the land comprised in Killa Nos. 9/2,10/1, 11/1, 11/2 12/1, 12/2, situated in village Nangal Chaudhary, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh and that he had constructed a pucca Nohra in this land and had got an electric connection in the year 1971. He alongwith his family is residing in this Nohra since the year 1970. Adjacent to the Nohra, an Ahata is attached which is being used by him for parking his tractor etc. The respondents acquired a part of the residential Nohra of the petitioner thus bifurcating the same into two parts; one which has been acquired and the other which has been released. According to the petitioner, respondents have thought it fit to release a part of the Nohra situate in killa Nos. 9/2, 10/1 while they have thought it fit to acquire a part of the Nohra situate in Killa Nos. 11/1, 12/1, 12/2. Besides this, about 7 acres of agricultural land of the petitioner is under impugned acquisition. According to the petitioner, land measuring 222-17 kanals was to be acquired for the same purpose but subsequently the acquisition was reduced to 213-18 kanals in order to favour the highly placed persons in the Government machinery. It is alleged by the petitioner that the entire acquisition is discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice. The object of reduction in acquisition was to favour Shri Surjan Singh, Smt. Shanti Devi, Col. Ram Singh, Speaker Haryana Vidhan Sabha and Devi Sahai Jat etc. According to the petitioner, deletion of this area under Section 6 of the Act tantamounts to discrimination and misuse of power as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is further alleged by the petitioner that he filed objections under Section 5 of the Act but the same have not been decided by the respondents so far. It is further alleged that apparently there is no system which appears to have been followed in releasing/acquiring the houses/plots except that the houses/plots belonging to important influential persons like Smt. Sharda Devi wife of Col. Ram Singh, Speaker Haryana Vidhan Sabha and those belonging to close relations of Bansi Lal, MLA have been released. This action of the respondents is contrary to the canons of justice.

(3.) AT the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner had constructed a pucca Nohra and got an electric connection in the year 1971 and is residing with his family members in this Nohra since 1970 i.e. before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Nohra was liable to be released from the acquisition proceedings especially when the plots of other persons (mentioned in the petition) who had constructed houses, have been released from acquisition. According to the learned counsel, the action of the respondents in not releasing the Nohra of the petitioner from acquisition, is mala-fide, discriminatory and arbitrary and as such, the notification under Section 4 of the Act, is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision rendered in Mohinder Singh Sharma and anr. v. State of Haryana, 1988(2) R.R.R. 502 : 1988 PLJ 525and Sukhdev Sharma etc. v. State of Haryana, 1993 LACC 86 : 1993(2) RRR 28 (P&H).