SURESH BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against notification dated 6.5.2006 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration dated 3.5.2007 made under Section 6 of the Act (Annexures P.7 and P.11 respectively).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioners are owner in possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 120 and Khatoni No. 148 in village Kambopura, Tehsil and District Karnal and total land is approximately 36 bighas 11 biswas comprising in khasra Nos. 267/1, 268, 269/1, 265, 266, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 359/1 and 360. It is claimed that the petitioners are themselves in possession of the land as per revenue record (Jamabandi) dated 23.3.2006 (Annexure P.1). The petitioners entered into partnership deed and planned to start a Light Motor Vehicle and Heavy Motor Vehicle Repairing Plant and Marble Cutting Plant. They entered into a partnership deed which was got registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies on 24.4.2006 under the name and Style of BPS Udyog 118/7, GT Road, Karnal ( Annexures P.2 and P.3). The unit was also provisionally registered with the Small Scale Industries, Department of Haryana on 31.3.2006 as also with the Custom and Excise Department on 30.4.2006 for the purposes of sales Tax (Annexure P.3A). It has further been asserted that an application was filed by the partnership firm with the Director, Urban Development, Haryana for granting permission for change of land use and requisite fee was deposited (Annexures P.5 and P.6). However, on 6.5.2006 a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. The petitioner filed objection on 18.5.2006 under Section 5-A of the Act by urging that the purpose of developing an industrial area, Karnal in Sector 37 is not a 'public purpose' within the meaning of Section 3(f) of the Act. Eventually declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 3.5.2007. Proceedings for change of land use were also continuing side by side.

(3.) MR . Akshay Bhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two arguments before us. On the basis of the site plan (Annexure P.13) and photographs (Annexures P.17 and P.18), he has submitted that there is discrimination against the petitioner in as much as the land belonging to the petitioners has been acquired and that of Modern Automobiles has been released from acquisition. According to the learned counsel, the construction raised on the land belonging to the petitioners has been fully depicted in the photographs (Annexure P.18) whereas the construction of Modern Automobile Ltd. whose land has been released, as depicted in photographs (Annexure P.17), which is almost the same. The second submission is that the development of an industrial estate is not a 'public purpose' covered by Section 3(f) of the Act and therefore on that basis no land could be acquired by putting forward the excuse of public purpose.