SUDESH MADAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing lay out plan of Sector 15, Phase-I, Jagadhri (Annexure P-9), prepared by the Department of District Town and Country Planning, Jagadhrirespondent No. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though in the notification dated 2.5.2001 (P-7) issued under Section 4 and declaration dated 30.4.2002 (P-8) issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') the land belonging to her was not included but the respondents have included her land in the lay out plan for Sector 15, Phase-I, Jagadhri, erroneously.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner purchased 2 Bighas 15 Biswas of land, comprised in Khasra No. 445 and land measuring 14 Biswas comprising in Khasra No. 447, situated in village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, vide two registered sale deeds dated 9.4.1982 and 16.5.1984. On 21.4.1987, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for acquiring 250.54 acres of land falling under the revenue estates of village Garhi Mundon (Hadbast No. 408) and Tejli (Hadbast No. 409), Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala (now in District Yamunanagar) for the public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of land as residential area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (P-1). Subsequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 2.4.1988 and award was announced in respect of 117.68 acres of land on 17.4.1990. The aforementioned land purchased by the husband of the petitioner was also included in the notification and stood acquired.

(3.) IT is also pertinent to notice here that before passing the judgment dated 29.9.1992, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.4.1990, in respect of land measuring 117.68 acres. A number of references under Section 18 of the Act were preferred by the land owners including the husband of the petitioner and the learned Additional District Judge also enhanced the compensation vide order dated 18.11.1991. In para No. 11 of the petition, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that her husband did not receive any compensation in terms of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of the Act. However, the assertion made by the petitioner has been emphatically controvered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement and in para 2 of the preliminary objections it has been stated that the amount of compensation as well as enhanced amount of compensation were received by the petitioner and her husband on 3.3.1992 and 2.5.1990 respectively. The stand taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has not been rebutted by filing any replication.