RAKHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners initially filed the writ petition for quashing the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated July 31, 1984 and the subsequent notification under section 6 dated August 20, 1995.During the pendency of this writ petition certain Khasra Nos. which were not acquired earlier were acquired by the State Government. Notification under section 4 with respect to said Khasra Nos. was issued on August 14, 1986 and under section 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 notification were challenged. According to the allegations made in the writ petition, the petitioners are the supporters of Shri Lachman Singh, M.L.A. from Kalka constituency. Since there was political rivalry in the village and said Lachman Singh was not in power, Shri Ram Gopal, Sarpanch or 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 or 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. 3.16 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 read 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, the are already two passages/constructed road which is being used as a thorough fare 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 Dot be successfully controverted. Earlier notification under section 4 was issued on July 31, 1984 whereas the notification under section 6 was issued on August 20, 1985. Meanwhile the and 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 newspaper circulating in the locality in which the land is situate of which at least one shall be in the regional language. The declaration under section 6 was Published in the official gazette dated August 20. 1985 whereas in the two daily newspapers the same notification was published such earlier i.e. about three months prior to this notification in the gazette i.e. on May 23, 1985 in 'Indian Express' (Copy Annexure R-8) and in 'Dainik Tribune' dated May 23. 1985 (Copy Annexure R.9). Similarly, as regards the subsequent acquisition, the notification under section 6 was published in the official gazette dated January 6, 1987, whereas in the two daily newspaper 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 22, 1986 though it was published in the official Gazette dated January 6, 1987 whereas the earlier notification under section 6 is dated August 8, 1985 though published in the official gazette dated August 20, 1985.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that unless the possession was taken as provided under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land does not vest in the State Government and, therefore, the writ petition was filed before the possession was taken from them Thus the land has not vested in the State Government as yet In support of this contention, he cited Supreme Court judgment reported as The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and others V. M/s Godrej & Boyce,1988 1 RRR 403 . It was further argued that publication in the two daily newspapers as provided in sub section 2 of section 6 of the amended Act could not be prior to the notification in the official gazette. According to the learned counsel, the publication of the declaration in the official gazette and in the two daily newspapers should be simultaneous and not in any case prior to the notification in the official gazette. In support of this contention, he referred] to a Supreme Court judgment reported as The Collector (Distt. Magistrate), Allahabad and another V. Raja Ram Jaiswal., 1985 AIR(SC) 1622.Thus argued the learned counsel that since there was violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute under which the land was acquired, the whole acquisition proceeding ate illegal and are liable to be quashed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this behalf he referred to Sukhdev Singh and others V. State of Punjab and others, 1984 PunLJ 192.