GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA Vs. HAKAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 342 to 345 and 386 to 389 of 1974 which involve similar question of law. The facts in the judgment are being given from Letters Patent Appeal No. 345 of 1974.

(2.) Hukam Singh respondent No. 1 is the owner and in possession of land measuring about 57 Bighas situated within the revenue estate of village Sihii, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Gurgaon which he has been using for agricultural purposes. D. L. F. Housing and Construction Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) respondent No. 2, proposed to develop sectors 10 and 11 of Faridabad. The said land falls within sector 10. It is averred that the Directors of the Company are influential people and they prevailed upon Government to issue notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to acquire the land of respondent No. 1 which was later on withdrawn at his representation. Thereafter, another notification under S. 4 was issued by the State Government which was published on October 3, 1972. Respondent No. 1 again filed objections under S. 5-A of the Act and the State withdrew the notification on February 22, 1973. Sub-sequently, another notification dated February 23, 1973, was Issued by the State under S. 4 of the Act which was published on the same day. Respondent No. 1 filed, objections under S. 5-A. It is alleged that without conducting any inquiry, appellant No. 3 submitted a report to the Government and thereafter a notification under S. 6 was issued on May 3, 1973. Respondent No. 1 challenged the legality and propriety of the notification inter alia on the ground that it was colourable exercise of jurisdiction by the State Government that the land should have been acquired under Part VII of the Act as it was being done for the purpose of the Company and that the objections under Section 5-A of the Act were not properly disposed of.

(3.) The learned single. Judge came to the conclusion that, the notifications had been issued under, colourable exercise of jurisdiction by the State, Government. He did not consider it necessary to decade the other two points for the reason that the writ was being allowed by him. In view of the said finding, the learned Judge quashed the notifications issued under Ss. 4 and, 6. Two appeals have been filed against the said order, one by the State Government etc. respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3 (Letters Patent Appeal No. 345 of 1974) and the other by, the Company (Letters Patent Appeal No. 387 of 1974). The other three petitions were filed by some other landowners on the same grounds. Those writ petitions were also allowed by the learned single Judge. In each case, two appeals have been filed, one by the State and the official respondents and the other by the Company Thus there are in all eight appeals.