HARI PARASHAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the request of the Market Committee, Kaithal the State Government initiated the process to acquire a total area of 30 acres 2 kanals and 19 marlas of land for a public purpose, namely of the establishment of a new grain market, staff quarters, Rest House and Gadda Shed at Siwan, Tehsil Kaithal, District Kurukshetra. A notification dated 22.6.1978 was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) inviting objections to the acquisition. This land notified for acquisition was not found suitable as it was prone to floods and was low lying area situated in a deep depression. No further steps were taken by the State Government and the notification was allowed to lapse. Thereafter, another area measuring 25 acres and 3 kanals at Siwan was notified under Section 4 of the Act for the same purpose. The provisions of Section 17 of the Act were invoked and both the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act were issued on 21.6.1982. The State Government exercising its powers under Section 48 of the Act excluded/withdrew from acquisition an area of 51 kanals 5 marlas from the land notified for acquisition under the notification dated 21.6.1982. The notification under Sections 4 and 6 as also one under Section 48 of the Act were challenged by Smt. Jai Kaur and others in civil writ petition 4884 of 1985. That writ petition stands admitted and is pending in this Court. Dispossession of the petitioner therein has been stayed. It is not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Collector has not given an award under Section 11 till date and, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated for acquisition have lapsed in view of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. By a notification dated 18.7.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Act the State Government again notified yet another area of land for the same purpose of constructing a new grain market, office building, staff quarters. Rest House, Gadda shed etc. at Siwan. Objections were invited from all the interested persons. Petitioners filed their objections on 25.8.1994 and while those objections were still pending they filed a civil writ petition No. 13488 of 1994 in this Court challenging the notification under Section 4 of the Act. This writ petition was dismissed as pre-mature on 20.10.1994 and a direction was issued to the Land Acquisition Collector to decide the objections expeditiously. However, the State Government issued the declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 28.4.1995 and the land which was earlier notified on 18.7.1994 was acquired. Petitioners again challenged the notification under Section 6 of the Act by filing civil writ petition No. 8645 of 1995 which came up for hearing before a Division Bench on 30.5.1997 and the same was allowed primarily on the ground that the objections filed by the petitioners had not been decided even though the declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been issued by the State Government. The notification dated 28.4.1995 was quashed and a direction issued to the respondents therein to decide the objections filed by the petitioners and thereafter it was left open to the authorities to issue a fresh notification in accordance with law. It may be mentioned that when this writ petition came up for motion hearing proceedings in the acquisition were stayed on 7.6.1995. The Land Acquisition Collector then decided the objections filed by the petitioners and made his recommendations to the State Government in December, 1997. He recommended that the land of the petitioners along the road side be excluded from acquisition. On receipt of the report from the Land Acquisition Collector, the State Government considered the recommendation and by a notification dated 10.2.1998 the declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued acquiring the land which was earlier notified on 18.7.1994 under Section 4 of the Act. The present writ petition has been filed challenging both the notifications as issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. Allegations of mala fides have been levelled against Shri Harpal Singh, former Agriculture Minister, Haryana as, according to the petitioners, their land was acquired at his behest by the State Government but these allegations were not pressed at the time of arguments.

(2.) In response to the notice issued by this court the respondents have filed their written statements controverting the allegations made in the writ petition.

(3.) It was strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that while deciding their objections under Section 5-A of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector made a recommendation to the State Government to release the land of the petitioners and that the State Government while taking final decision thereon did not take into consideration proceeding that recommendation and, therefore, the acquisition proceedings qua them were illegal. We find no merit in this contention. The learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana produced before us the original records and having perused the same we find that the Land Acquisition Collector did recommend that the land of the petitioners be excluded but that recommendation after being duly considered by the competent authority was not accepted and it was decided that the land as notified including that of the petitioner be acquired.