Lachhman Singh vs State of Haryana

N.C. Jain, J.—This judgment of ours would dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 5900, 5901, 5902, 5903, 5904, 7908, 7878, 7884 of 1990; 4037 and 6637 of 1991, as they have arisen out of a common notification. The facts and law points involved in these petitions are also the same.

Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that his Court may pick up the facts from writ petition No. 5900 of 1990. The facts in the aforementioned petition are that the land in dispute measuring 457.5 acres situated in the revenue estates of villages Basai, Kadipur, Dhanwapur and Gurgaon, was acquired for public purposes, namely, developing and utilization of land as residential and commercial area for Sectors-9, 9-A and 10 at Gurgaon. The notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), was issued on 8.3.1989, followed by notification u/s 6 of the Act on 7.3.1990.

Several writ petitions were filed challenging the legality and validity of the aforementioned notifications before this Court. It is the conceded position before us that a Single Bench of this Court in Hira Lal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr., C.W.P. No. 3000 of 1991, decided on 31st October 1992 1 P.L.R. 241, upheld the notifications. In view thereof, the present cases are covered by the decision given by this Court in Hira Lal''s case (supra). Accordingly, all the writ petitioners are ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to deal with some of the writ petitions in which counsel for the petitioners have argued separately.

C.W.P. No. 5900 of 1990.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in this case has argued that the petitioners have raised construction of substantial nature. Reference has been made to paragraphs 3 to 6 of the writ petition. The precise argument of the counsel is that in view of the nature of superstructures raised by the petitioners on the acquired land, a reasonable area should have been left from acquisition. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has argued that perusal of the reply to the aforementioned paragraphs makes it clear that vacant area equivalent to the constructed area has been released from the acquisition and, therefore, there is no force in this writ petition as well.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that release of equivalent vacant area is quite reasonable. In addition to the carpet area, the respondents have released equivalent area for the proper enjoyment of the constructed area. The release of equivalent vacant area in our considered view is quite reasonable.

C.W.P. No. 5903 of 1990

In this case also, the respondents have released equivalent vacant area to that of constructed area for the proper enjoyment of the constructed area. The release of equivalent vacant area in our considered view is quite reasonable.

Resultantly, no case for release of the aforementioned land from acquisition, for the reasons recorded above, is made out. The petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.