Biru vs Secretary to Government, Haryana

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

The petitioners, through this writ petition, have sought for quashing the impugned Notification dated 1711980, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P1 to the writ petition, issued by respondent No. 1 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the ''Act'').

The impugned Notification has been challenged on the plea that the State Government has invoked the urgency provisions and dispensed with the petitioners'' right of filing objections under Section 5A of the Act.

Mr. Neeraj Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of the Court that earlier the petitioners had challenged the similar Notification by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 2316 of 1979. A notice of motion to the State was issued and ultimately on 2081979 on the statement made by the counsel for the State, the Notification under challenge in that writ petition was withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the Notification, the writ petition was not pressed and the same was accordingly dismissed.

The stand taken by the respondents in the written statement is that Notification under Section 4 of the Act invokes the urgency provisions within the meaning of Section 17(2)(c) read with Section 17(4) thereby dispensing with the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. It is further averred in the written statement that acquisition proceedings are being taken up in accordance with the provisions of law and there is no infirmity in issuing the impugned Notification.

I have considered the respective stand of the parties and perused the paperbook thoroughly. It is revealed from the paperbook that the State Government had earlier issued Notification dated 30.8.1979 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 2316 of 1979. This very Notification was withdrawn by the Government and again after lapse of 5 months a similar Notification date 1711980 now challenged in the instant case was issued for acquisition of land required for the construction of a warehouse at Kaithal. In my view, there is no justification for invoking the urgency provisions and to dispense with the petitioners'' statutory right in filing objections under Section 5A of the Act. In this writ petition, notice of motion for 631980 was issued by a Division Bench on 1221980 and dispossession of the petitioners was ordered to be stayed. Till today, neither the State Government moved any application for vacation of stay nor it cared to move an application for early hearing. Therefore, the plea of urgency raised by the State is without any substance.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Notification dated 1711980 (Annexure P1) is quashed. No order as to costs.