DEVANDER SAGAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of C.W.P. No. 1123 of 2006, CWP No. 2166 of 2007 and CWP No. 1465 of 2006 as the common question of law is involved therein. However, facts have been referred from CWP No. 1123 of 2006. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing notification dated 18.1.2001(P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,(for brevity the 'Act') declaration dated 30.12.2004 issued under Section 6 of the Act (P- 5).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent-State issued a notification dated 18.1.2001 under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Act proposing to acquire 12.18 acres of land falling in village Kheri Markanda Hadbast No. 378 and 11.64 acres of village Ratgal Hadbast No. 376, 0.70 acres of Dara Kalan Hadbat No. 379 for the public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land as for out fell storm sewer and for sewerage treatment plant and Samshan Ghat at Kurukshetra. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 was issued on 19.1.2001. Some of the land owners including the petitioners challenged the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 by arguing that urgency clause under Section 17 has been illegally invoked without any warrant. The Division Bench after recording the fact that the award of the land was announced on 21.10.2006 has held that in the aforementioned factual position a period of 30 days could be granted to the petitioner for filing the objections under Section 5-A of the Act. It was further found that 80% of the compensation contemplated by Section 17 (3A) of the Act had also not been paid and,therefore, it was concluded that invoking of urgency clause was wholly unwarranted. The Division Bench in its order dated 12.1.2004 (P-3) while disposing of CWP No. 4887 of 2002 has concluded as follows :-

(3.) MR . Amit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if the notification under Section 6 of the Act has been quashed in a writ petition then fresh notification in respect of the same land by keeping alive the notification under Section 4 could only be issued within the statutory period prescribed for that purpose i.e. only one year. In that regard, he has placed reliance on paras 12, 14 and 15 on a Constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002(2) RCR(Civil) 373 : 2002(1) PLJ 397 and has argued that while dealing with the aforementioned issues their Lordships have held that such a course is not open to the acquisition authorities.