PAYARE LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be owners in possession of 42 biswas of land in village Wazirabad, District Gurgaon. They claim to have constructed a residential house on this land. On September 8, 1997, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 indicating its intention to acquire land for the development of residential, commercial, institutional and open spaces in various sectors of Gurgaon. Besides other villages, land measuring 309.30 acres in Wazirabad was also proposed to be acquired. The petitioners claim to have filed objections under Section 5-A. A copy of the objections dated July 23, 1998 has been produced as Annexure P.4 with the writ petition. They were called upon to appear for personal hearing. Ultimately, on September 7, 1998, a notification under Section 6 was issued. Instead of land measuring 309.30 acres, an area of 267.11 acres was acquired. Aggrieved by the action of the State Government, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. It is alleged that the respondents have not conducted a survey as required under Section 3-A of the Act. Still further, the petitioners allege that the seven day's notice as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act had not been given.

(2.) Section 3-A primarily authorises the concerned authority to survey the land with the object of marking the level etc. and to determine its suitability for the public purpose for which it is required. It even authorises the authority to "cut down and clear away any part of any standing crop, fence or jungle." According to the Proviso, no person can enter "into any building or upon any enclosed court or garden attached to a dwelling house (unless with the consent of the occupier thereof), without previously giving such occupier at least seven days's notice in writing of his intention to do so." A similar provision has also been made in Section 4(2). The petitioners complain that the land is going to be utilised for the benefit of M/s Ansal Properties. No survey had been conducted. No notice as contemplated under the law had been given to the petitioners. Thus, the entire acquisition proceedings are vitiated.

(3.) We have heard Mr. R.K. Jain, counsel for the petitioners.