BIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for quashing lay out plan of Sector 15, Phase-I, Jagadhri (Annexure P-10), prepared by the Department of District Town and Country Planning, Jagadhri-respondent No. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though in the notification dated 2.5.2001 (P-8) issued under Section 4 and declaration dated 30.4.2002 (P-9) issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') the land belonging to him was not included but the respondents have included his land in the lay out plan for Sector 15, Phase-I, Jagadhri, erroneously.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased 7 Biswa land, comprised in Khewat No. 170, Khatoni No. 275, Khasra No. 561, situated in village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, vide registered sale deed dated 20.7.1981. On 21.4.1987, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for acquiring 250.54 acres of land falling under the revenue estates of village Garhi Mundon (Hadbast No. 408) and Tejli (Hadbast No. 409), Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala (now in District Yamunanagar) for the public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of land as residential area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (P-1). Subsequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 2.4.1988 and award was announced in respect of 117.68 acres of land on 17.4.1990. The land belonging to the petitioner was also acquired.

(3.) IT is also pertinent to notice here that before passing of the judgment dated 29.9.1992, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.4.1990, in respect of land measuring 117.68 acres. A number of references under Section 18 of the Act were preferred by the land owners including the present petitioner and the learned Additional District Judge also enhanced the compensation vide order dated 18.11.1991, which was disbursed amongst the beneficiaries. The petitioner had also filed R.F.A. No. 1087 of 1992 for enhancement of compensation in respect of his acquired land. However, the aforementioned appeal was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, vide order dated 14.5.1993 (P-4) because of quashing of acquisition proceedings.