GOPI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 1972 and 2005 of 1982, as the question involved in both the cases is common. In these petitions 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 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Notification No. 4278-Agri-II(5)- 31/3711, dated 18.3.1982, issued by the Haryana Government, Urban Estate Department, under Section 6(2) of the Act, vide which the land of the petitioners 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 petitioners, after purchase of the plots in question constructed residential Kothas for their own use and occupation and are presently living therein. They do not have any other residential plot or house in village Nangal Chaudhary. Besides the petitioners, six other persons had purchased land in the same locality and constructed houses thereon. The land in dispute was entered in the revenue records as Gair Mumkin Abadi even prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act. According to the petitioners, land measuring 222.17 kanals was to be acquired for the same purpose but subsequently the acquisition was reduced to an area measuring 213.18 kanals in order to favour the highly placed persons in Government machinery. It is alleged by the petitioners that the entire acquisition is discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice and more so when the plots/houses/shops belonging to other persons similarly situated have been released from acquisition. Some plots were released by the respondents in order to favour Shri Surjan Singh, Smt. Shanti Devi, Col. Ram Singh, Speaker Haryana Vidhan Sabha, Devi Sahai and others. According to the petitioners, 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. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act but the same have not been decided so far.

(3.) AT the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the petitioners had already constructed Kothas/Chhapars on the plots in dispute prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and as such, their property 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 plots of the petitioners from acquisition proceedings, 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 decisions rendered in Mohinder Singh Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1988(2) R.R.R. 502 : 1988 PLJ 525 and Sukhdev Sharma etc. v. State of Haryana, 1993 LACC 86 : 1993(3) RRR 28(P&H).