RAM MEHAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners' land situate in village Nariana, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal was acquired for public purpose namely for the free allotment of residential house/plots to the landless, homeless, Harijans and members of backward classes and economically weaker sections of the society. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') issued in this behalf is dated November 3, 1983 (Annexure P-1) whereas notification under Section 6 of the Act is dated March 19, 1985 (Annexure P-2) acquiring the land of the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the said acquisition primarily on the ground that there was no publication by Munadi in the area, of the acquisition under Section 4 of the Act and, therefore, the whole proceedings are vitiated. Secondly, notification under Section 6 of the Act dated March 19, 1985 was issued after amendment of the Land Acquisition Act. There was no publication in the two newspapers as required under Section 6 thereof. Thirdly, the purpose for which the land was acquired could not be said to be a public purpose for which the land could be acquired. In the return filed on behalf of the State, a preliminary objection was taken that even the award has been announced on August 22, 1985, inasmuch as the possession of the land acquired was also taken over by the Revenue Department vide Rapat Roznamcha No. 455 dated August 31, 1985 (copy Annexure R-2) and also Rapat Roznamcha No. 376 dated June 15, 1986 (copy Annexure R-3). It was denied that there was no publication by Munadi of the notification under Section 4 of the Act or there was no publication of notification under Section 6 in the two newspapers as required under Section 6 of the Amendment Act.

(2.) On the last date of hearing, the State counsel wanted time to produce the original Roznamcha to show that the Munadi under Section 4 of the Act was done in accordance with law. The original Rapat Roznamcha was produced today in Court. Its copy was already produced along with the return as Annexure R. 5. After perusal of the Rapat Roznamcha in original, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the petitioners that there was no Munadi of the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the area concerned. As regards publication in the newspapers as provided under Section 6 of the Act, the two newspapers in which the notification was published, were also shown today in Court and, therefore, it could not be successfully argued on behalf of the petitioners that there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act.

(3.) As regards public purpose, Section 3(f)(iv) of the Act includes the provision of land for housing poor, landless or displaced person or persons residing in areas affected by floors. Therefore, the plea that the land was not acquired for public purpose is to be negatived. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that earlier this very notification was quashed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4354 of 1985 decided on February 26, 1986 and, therefore, on the same basis, the land of the petitioners also could not be acquired. There is no merit in this contention. In that writ petition, the land was situated in village Jaursi Saraf Khas, sub-tehsil Smalkha, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal whereas the petitioners' land is situated in village Nariana, Tehsil Panipat, District Karnal. That writ petition was allowed through related to the same notification because the respondents were directed to produce original Roznamcha but in spite of that, the same was not produced in Court. As regards the present writ petition, as observed earlier, that the original Roznamcha was produced in Court and its copy was already produced along with the return as Annexure R-5. Thus the said judgment has no bearing on the facts of the present writ petition.