MANOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notifications dated 25.11.2003 and 27.11.2003 (Annexures P-I & P-2) issued under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). The petitioner was owner of land measuring 8 Kanals 8 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 101, Khatauni No. 103, Khasra No. 16//33 situated at village Patti Mehar, Tehsil Ambala, District Ambala. It is conceded as a fact that his land was not notified in the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act (Annexures P-1 and P-2). However, after a period of about 9 months, a corrigendum dated 02.08.2004 was issued by the respondents proposing to acquire the land of the petitioner by including the land comprising Khasra No. 16//33 situated at the same village. The short question which arises for consideration is whether the land of the petitioner could be acquired by issuing a corrigendum after a period of 9 months, especially when urgency provision under Section 17 of the Act has been invoked.

(2.) MR . Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the issuance of corrigendum on 02.08.2004 after a gap of about 9 months from the date of notification under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Act can not nullify the right of the petitioner because invocation of urgency under Section 17 of the Act would completely loose its significance in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner. He has maintained that within a period of 9 months, the petitioner could have filed objections under Section 5(A) of the Act by apprising the respondents that his land was not required or necessary for construction of road. Mr. Pritam Saini, learned counsel has argued that the petitioner has lost the right to file objection and also right to challenge the notification at the appropriate stage. The petitioner would also suffer pecuniary loss as he would not be given the market rate of his land prevalent on the date of issuance of corrigendum on 02.08.2004 and he would get market value of his land prevalent on 25.11.2003 when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Honble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of The Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Shafi, 1992(1) RRR 583 : 1992(2) SCC 168.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, we are of the considered view that land owned by the petitioner could not be acquired by issuance of a corrigendum. In somewhat similar circumstances, Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered arguments raised in the case of Narendrajit Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1971 SC 309. In that case, their Lordships dealt with the requirements of a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. It was held that the defect of non-mentioning of the locality in the notification issued under Section 4, was a serious defect which could not be cured. An argument raised on behalf of the acquiring authority that if the detailed particulars are mentioned in the notification issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, then any such defect in the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act would be cured. The afore-mentioned argument has been rejected as would emerge from a perusal of concluding part of para 10 which reads thus :- "In our view the defect in a notification under Section 4(1) cannot be cured by giving full particulars in the notification under Sections 6(1). In this case it is apparent that even before the issue of the first notification Government had made up its mind to acquire the lands of the petitioners inasmuch as there was no enquiry in between the two notifications and no valid reason has been put forward to explain why the details specified in the notification under Section 6(1) could not be given in the one under Section 4(1). The fact that the petitioners did not go to Court immediately after the publication of the first notification is not a matter of any moment. The defects were not cured and cannot be glossed over by reason of the fact that the petitioners went to Court after the issue of the notification under Section 6(1)."