ASHA SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall disposed of C.W.P. Nos. 10281 of 2007 and 18125 of 2005. However, facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 10281 of 2007, which has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging notification dated 16.12.1988 (P-7), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act'), declaration dated 14.12.1989 issued under Section 6 of the Act (P-8) and award dated 22.11.2005 (P-9). It is pertinent to mention huge chunk of land stood already acquired vide Award dated 16.04.1991, Award dated 12.12.1991, Award dated 26.03.1992 and Award dated 3.07.1992. On account of stay order passed in CWP No. 3984 of 1990 dismissed on 7.05.2004 award in respect of the most of the land was announced on 22.11.2005 (P-9). It has been claimed that Smt. Gunjan Singhal-petitioner No. 2 had purchased land measuring 3 Biswas 3-1/2 Biswasi, comprised in Khasra No. 1411//696/3, situated in the revenue estate of village Khandsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, vide registered sale deed dated 15.4.1993. She is absolute owner of the aforementioned land in pursuance to the registered sale deed (P- 1). Smt. Asha Singhal-petitioner No. 1 is claimed to be lessee in respect of land measuring 6 Biswas 7 Biswasi, comprised in Khasra No. 1411//696/3 from one Shri Kamal Kumar son of Shri Kali Dass, for a period of 90 Years i.e. from 1994 to 2084 (P-2). It is further claimed that both the petitioners are in possession of the afore mentioed land. The petitioners have alleged that they had constructed a residential house on a part of the land and on the other part a restaurant, namely, 'Sugandh Restaurant' has been opened. Another portion of construction has been leased out to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, vide lease deed dated 8.8.2006 by petitioner No. 2 (P-3). She is also stated to have set up a Hanuman Temple in the premises (P-4). The petitioners have alleged that khasra number, which has been purchased by them was subjected to bifurcation into Min numbers and the whole khasra No. 696/3 could not be considered to exist. According to the petitioners notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act as well as the award do not reflect the acquisition of Min khasra numbers but has only shown the bigger khasra No. 696. On the aforementioned basis it is sought to be contended that the land belonging to the petitioners cannot be considered to be acquired and that the respondent State cannot take possession.

(2.) MR . M.L. Saggar, learned State counsel, however, has submitted that a perusal of notification dated 16.12.1988, issued under Sections 4 of the Act (P-7) and declaration dated 14.12.1989, issued under Section 6 of the Act (P- 8) would show that whole khasra No. 696 has been acquired. He has also pointed out that even in the award dated 22.11.2005 (P-9), the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Gurgaon has taken notice of the whole khasra No. 696. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that the petitioners have purchased the land after issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act and they could not have possibly filed any objection under Section 5A of the Act because they admittedly purchased or taken the land on lease on 15.4.1993 and 10.5.1994 respectively (P-1 and P-2) which is much later than notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. He has maintained that by no stretch of imagination the petitioners could have been regarded as owner on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 or declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the years 1988 and 1989. Pointing out to the facts of the other petition (C.W.P. No. 18125 of 2005), learned State counsel has contended that those petitioners had filed their claim in pursuance to notice issued under Section 9 of the Act accepting that they were owner of khasra No. 696/3 although there is mistake in mentioning the rectangle as 1141. Learned counsel has maintained that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner once the whole khasra No. 696 was sought to be acquired. According to the learned counsel it may at best be a mistake causing no prejudice to the rights of the parties.

(3.) THE aforementioned view is supported by Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Hajari v. State AIR 1976 MP 76. In that case the controversy arose regarding the requirement of a valid notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act as to whether mention of the locality alone without specifying the survey numbers was insufficient. It was concluded that omission to give particulars of land with reference to Khasra numbers in a notification under Section 4(1) does not render the notification invalid and specifying the locality in which the land is situated is sufficient compliance of Section 4(1). However, under Section 6 particulars of land needed or required to be specified as Section 6 uses different language than the one used in Section 4(1) of the Act. In the present case the whole Khasra number has been specified without mentioning its parts which have been carved out, on account of bifurcation, partition by the subsequent purchaser. Therefore, we are of the view that it fulfills the requirement of Sections 4(1) and 6 of the Act. In any case the petitioners could not have filed any objections under Section 5A of the Act because they acquired rights in the land/property in question in 1993 and 1994 which is more than 5 and 6 years after the notifications were issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.