VIPIN JINDAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, prayer has been made for quashing notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1884 (for brevity the 'Act') on 21.4.1987 and declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 20.4.1988. A further prayer for quashing award dated 12.4.1990 (Annexure P-3) has also been made. It is conceded position that the aforementioned notifications were earlier challenged by the petitioner by filing Civil Writ Petition No.4690 of 1989. However, he withdrew the writ petition on 14.1.1993 by moving an application for deleting his name from the array of the petitioners. Accordingly, the application was allowed and the name of the petitioner was deleted. It is a different matter that later on, the aforementioned petition along with other petitions was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.5732 of 1998 and the notifications dated 12.4.1987 and 20.4.1988 were set aside qua the land of those petitioners. However, there was no effect on the land of the petitioner because he had already withdrawn his writ petition on 14.1.1993. Subsequently, the respondent-State again issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 11.2.2002 and declaration was issued on 10.2.2003 under Section 6 of the Act (Annexures P-7 and P-8). A number of writ petitions were filed on 11.10.2007. The Advocate General, Haryana had stated that the land of those who have challenged the notifications and other persons would be released from acquisition. Accordingly, order dated 11.10.2007 (Annexure P-9) was passed by this Court. The petitioner has claimed that the land belonging to him also deserves to be released from acquisition despite the fact that the land stood acquired on 20.4.1988 in pursuance to declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is further admitted position that the petitioner has been paid compensation after announcement of the award.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel at a considerable length, we find that once the land of the petitioner has been acquired in the year 1988 and he has already accepted the compensation in pursuance to the award and the land has come to vest in the State, free from all encumbrances. The petitioner cannot be given the benefits either by quashing of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, by virtue of the judgment dated 3.3.1997, passed in Civil Writ Petition No.5732 of 1998 or any other benefit including order dated 11.10.1997 (Annexure P-9) because none of the aforementioned orders would cover the land belonging to the petitioner.

(3.) Thus, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is hereby dismissed.