RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners allege that the land in dispute was purchased by them vide registered sale deed dated 26.9.1990. The total land thus, purchased was five kanals, nine marlas and the same was mutually partitioned for construction of respective residential houses. They raised the construction in the year 2000. The construction of petitioner No.1 was over 303.71 sq. yds. while that of petitioner No.2 was over 274 sq. yards. Various electricity bills and photographs have been placed on record in respect of the assertion that the construction was raised prior to issuance of Notification dated 18.12.2008 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) On 18.12.2008, the State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of 139.08 acres of land for Residential Sector-9 Part and Sector-10 part Dadri. The petitioners submitted their objections dated 15.1.2009 under Section 5-A of the Act, but the same were arbitrarily rejected. A total of 3.08 acres of land was released on account of objections under Section 5-A of the Act, but in doing so a pick and choose policy was adopted. Even thereafter, another five odd acres of land was released before passing of the impugned award. Notification dated 17.12.2009 was issued under Section 6 of the Act followed by Award dated 16.12.2011. Certain persons similarly situated as the petitioners challenged the acquisition vide CWP No.23386 of 2011 and other connected matters. These were disposed of vide judgment dated 20.8.2013 by a Division Bench of this Court by directing the respondents to verify the claims of the petitioners therein once again after conducting a fresh survey and then determine the area to be released. Such determination be made in accordance with policy dated 26.10.2007 and wherever constructed area has to be released, proportionate open space be also released. Even partially built plots and vacant plots be also released in case they cannot be used for the public purpose for which acquisition has been made and if their release does not affect any public utility. However, maximum size of vacant plots that may be released should be restricted to 250 sq. yards. The petitioners and some others challenged the acquisition vide CWP No.26763 of 2013 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 6.12.2013 in terms of judgment dated 20.8.2013. Filing of a contempt petition was necessitated as the State Government did not pass any order despite directions of this Court. During pendency of the said contempt petition, the authorities concerned hurriedly passed order dated 10.12.2014 without notice to the petitioners and without granting them any opportunity of hearing. The claim of the petitioners has been wrongly rejected vide order dated 10.12.2014 and thus, the same deserves to be quashed.

(3.) Detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that the construction on the land of the petitioners is post issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and thus, the land of the petitioners is not liable to be released under the policy dated 26.10.2007. It is, further averred that the present writ petition has been filed after passing of the award and thus, it is not maintainable. Wherever construction existed prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act, relief has been granted to the concerned persons and there is no arbitrariness on behalf of the State. No pick and choose policy has been adopted and all claims have been decided on their merits.