JANARDHAN DUTT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 19513 of 2005 (Janardhan Dutt v. State of Haryana and Ors.) and 10232 of 2006 (Arjun v. State of Haryana and Ors.), which have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging notification No. l89/1 -L, dated 10.1.2003, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') seeking to acquire land at public expenses for public purpose, namely, for the extension of Pundri Drain No. 1 from RD 55000 to 84412 in village Dussain, Ahun, Sangroli, Sakra and village Kheri Sakra, Tehsil and District Kaithal, notification No. 8389/14 (Kaithal (1), dated 17.11.2003, issued under Section 6 of the Act and notice dated 16.9.2005, issued under Section 9 of the Act. Further, prayer has been made for directing the respondents to survey the entire area again and to shift the drain to other place as per original plan, claiming that the land of the petitioners has been bifurcated and half of the land cannot be irrigated.

(2.) IT is admitted position that the land of the petitioners was included in the notification dated 10.1.2003, issued under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners did not file any objections under Section 5A of the Act and eventually the land belonging to them was acquired on 17.11.2003, vide declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The award was announced on 19.9.2005 and these petitions have been filed thereafter on 14.12.2005 (C.W.P. No. 19513 of 2005) and 11.7.2006 (C.W.P. No. 10232 of 2006).

(3.) MR . Ashish Kapoor, learned State counsel has pointed out that the petitioners did not file any objection under Section 5A of the Act and the instant writ petitions have been filed after announcement of the award. According to learned State Counsel the change of alignment without anything more cannot, constitute basis for vitiating the acquisition under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, even if the land of some of the objectors was excluded. He has maintained that in the absence of any specific allegation of malafide it has to be regarded that the allegations are vague and cannot be gone into by this Court.