NEERAJ JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims herself to be owner in possession of 8 Kanals of land situated in village Medawas, District Gurgaon, has filed the instant petition for quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-State by invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 (2) (c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In this case, a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) (4) of the Act was published on 24.6.2008 for acquisition of lands, situated in villages Ghatta, Berampur, Ullawas, Kadarpur, Medawas, Badshahpur, Nangli Amarpur and Tigra, for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land for sector roads for Sectors 58 to 67 at Gurgaon. In the notification, it was categorically stated that the Governor of Haryana was satisfied that the said land was urgently required for the aforesaid public purpose, therefore, the requirement of filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. On 14.7.2008, notification/declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector passed the Award on 15.7.2009 and took possession of the land.

(2.) After passing of the Award and taking of possession of the land, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the aforesaid acquisition on the ground that there was no urgency for acquiring the land for the aforesaid public purpose and the State Government has illegally and arbitrarily invoked the urgency provisions only with an object to deprive the land owners to file objections to the acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act. It is further alleged that the petitioner could not come to know about the aforesaid notification and the Award before filing the petition, because the publication of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were not effected in the locality. However, with the writ petition, no material was annexed, except the affidavits of three residents of the village to the effect that no munadi was effected in the village regarding the aforesaid acquisition. The petitioner also alleged that while acquiring the aforesaid land, the respondents have acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily and land of some influential persons has been left from acquisition.

(3.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that in the instant case, the State Government was not justified to invoke the urgency provisions for acquiring the land of the petitioner, while dispensing with the requirement of filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act. He argued that at least, the land owners should have been given the right to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act and if that process was adopted, it could have taken only 30 days. This fact indicates that the respondent-State had invoked the urgency provisions with an object to deprive the land owners to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act.