RAKHA SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA THROUGH SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (B&R) CIVIL SECRETARIAT, HARYANA, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner initially filed the writ petition for quashing the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated July 31, 1984 and the subsequent notification u/s 6 dated August 20, 1985. During the pendency of this writ petition certain Khasra Nos. which were not acquired earlier were acquired by the State Government. Notification u/s 4 with respect to said Khasra Nos. was issued on August 14, 1986 and u/s 6 the notification was issued on January 6, 1987. Consequently, the writ petition was amended and the amended writ petition dated November 28, 1986 was filed in this Court in which all these four notifications were challenged. According to the allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioners are the supporters of Shri Lachhman Singh, M.L.A. from Kalka constituency. Since there was political rivalry in the village and said Lachhman Singh was not in power, Shri Ram Gopal, Sarpanch of village Rampur Jangi, having affiliation with the ruling party was bent upon to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners. It has been averred in para 7 of the writ petition that already there are two passages of V. Rampur Jangi which connects the abadi with Pinjore Nalagarh road. The passage which is in blue colour in the plan Annexure P.4 is provided by the Consolidation authorities connecting Khasra Nos. 336 to 379 which is a abadi shown in Annexure P.4. This passage also passes through the land of the petitioners. It has been further stated in para 8 that in 1972 the respondents have acquired the land of the petitioners for a public purpose namely for construction of the road and consequently this road was constructed which is shown in red colour in the plan Annexure P.3. This road also passes through the fields of the petitioners and is being used as such since it was constructed. Thus, according to the petitioners, there are already two passages/constructed road which is being used as a thoroughfare since 1972, the present acquisition will further divide the land of the petitioners into fragments and small pieces. In the return filed on behalf of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. B & R Branch, Haryana, Chandigarh, these allegations as such have been denied.

(2.) HOWEVER , without going into these allegations, the main challenge of the petitioners is that though earlier award was given on February 20, 1986 but the possession of the land acquired was never taken from them and they are still in possession thereof. This position as such could not be successfully controverted. Earlier notification u/s 4 was issued on July (sic), 1984 whereas the notification u/s 6 was issued on August 20, 1985. Meanwhile the Land Acquisition Act was amended and the amending Act came into force w.e.f. September 24, 1984. According to the amended section 6, every declaration which was to be published in the official gazette was also to be published in the two daily newspapers circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language. The declaration u/s 6 was published in the official gazette dated August 20, 1985 whereas in the two daily newspapers the same notification was published much earlier i.e. about three months prior to this notification in the gazette i.e. on May 23, 1985 in 'Indian Express' (Copy Annexure K -8) and in 'Dainik Tribune' dated May 23, 1985 (copy Annexure R.9). Similarly, as regards the subsequent acquisition, the notification u/s 6 was published in the official gazette dated January 6, 1987, whereas in the two daily newspapers it was published on December 31, 1986 in 'Indian Express' and on December 30, 1986 in 'Dainik Tribune' i.e. prior to the notification in the official gazette. However, it was pointed out that the notification is dated December (sic), 1986 though it was published in the official gazette dated January 6, 1987 whereas the earlier notification u/s 6 is dated August 8, 1985 though published in the official gazette dated August 20, 1985.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the State Government submitted that the writ petition has been filed after a great delay. The notification u/s 4 was issued on July 31, 1984 and u/s 6 on August 20, 1985 Even the award was given on February (sic), 1986. But the writ petition was filed in May, 1986 and, therefore, on account of this delay the petitioners were not (sic) to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution In support of this contention, he referred to Zile Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1984 P.L.J. 314. It was next contended that all the acquisition proceedings have been completed and on that account also the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. As regards the publication of the declaration u/s 6 in the two daily newspapers, the learned counsel submitted that it was not the gazette notification to be published in the newspapers but the declaration made by the State Government. According to the learned counsel, since the declaration was made on December 22, 1986 which is the date of the notification though it was published in the official gazette of January 6, 1987, it was published in the daily newspapers of December 31, 1986 and December 30, 1986 and, therefore, there was due compliance of sub -section 2 of the section 6 of the Act. As regards the publication of the earlier notification published on the official gazette of August 20, 1985, the learned counsel submitted that no prejudice was caused to the petitioners because of the publication in the daily newspapers earlier and, there, fore, this by itself was not sufficient to quash the acquisition proceedings.