RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner complains that the notifications issued by the State Government for acquisition of land measuring 3 marlas on September 16, 1997 do not conform to the requirements of law and should, thus, be quashed. Is it so A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On September 16, 1997 the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, indicating that the land measuring 3 marlas was needed for the public purposes of constructing a drain for the disposal of sewerage water. This notification was published in the Haryana Gazette on September 16, 1997. A copy is at Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. On the same day another notification in respect of the same land was published under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner claims that he has a house on this land. The urgency provisions have been wrongly invoked. Despite the fact that the notification was published in the Gazette on September 16, 1997 no action had been taken by the respondents and, thus, the urgency provisions had been wrongly invoked. He prays that both the notification be quashed.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the State Government. It has been inter alia averred that the land was being acquired to construct a drain. It has been further stated that "though both the notifications were published on the same day, notification Annexure P-2 was despatched on 22.8.1997 and Annexure P-3 was despatched on 26.8.1997 for notification." It has been further averred that "there is no construction on the said land."