Om Parkash vs State of Haryana and Others

Prem Chand Jain, J.—The Petitioner is the owner of land measuring 16 kanals comprised in Khasra No. 10 (8 Kanals 0 marla) and 11 (8 kanals 0 marle) of Rectangle No. 31 siteate in the revenue estate of Ratgal, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra. Originally, the Petitioner was the owner of 176 kanals of land in this village out of which 160 kanals had been acquired by the Stale from time to time and he is left with only the aforesaid 16 kanals of land which is in his possession. The Petitioner submitted an application to the Director. Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, under the Controlled Area Act, for permitting him to use the aforesaid lands for residential purposes, but the prayer was declined and his appeal to the Director was also rejected.

It is further averred in the petition that the State of Haryana issued a notification No. LAC(P)-72, NTLA/2124, dated 3rd November, 1972. published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 3rd November, 1972 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of 3000 acres of land situated in village Bazidpur, Bir Pipli, Pipli, Devidaspura, Umri, Polwal, Sunderpur, Dera Kalan, Ratgal and Dera Khurd of Tehsil Thanesar, Distt Karnal now District Kurukshetra. In respect of village Ratgal, the Notification mentioned the area of acquisition to be 710.13 acres, thereby covering the entire land of the Petitioner. Another notification No. 2123, dated 3rd November, 1972, was issued by the Local Government Department of the State whereby besides the area situated in other village, land measuring 710-13 acres which was the total area of village Ratgal, was sought to be acquired

It is further stated that since the issuance of the notification dated 3rd November, 1972 Respondent No. 1 has been issuing successive notifications u/s 4 of the Act for acquiring the above referred lands of the Petitioner. The last notification which had been issued by Respondent No. 1 in this respect was dated 11th March, 1981, under which besides the land situated in villages, 51.39 acres of land of village Ratgal including the disputed land of the Petitioner was sought to be acquired for development and utilisation of land as City Centre for Sector 10. The Petitioner filed his objections dated 1st April, 1981 u/s 5-A of the Act but those objections have not been decided as no intimation was received by the Petitioner. It is on the basis of the aforesaid averments that the Petitioner has called in question the legality of the notifications.

In response to the notice of motion issued, the Respondents have filed written statement in which the material aliegations made in the petition have been controverted. So far as the dates of issuance of notifications are concerned, the same is not disputed in the written statement. About the objections tiled u/s 5-A of the Act, the Respondents have averred that after the final receipt of the report on 4th February, 1982, the matter was considered by the Government and notification u/s 6 of the Act was being issued very shortly.

On the basis of the admitted facts, it is contended by Mr. M.S. Jain, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the whole process adopted by the State Government for acquiring the land of the Petitioner by issuing notifications indiscreetly is to peg down the prices. What is sought to be argued by the Learned Counsel is that since 1972 when the first notification was issued, no concrete steps have been taken by the Government and the result of issuance of successive notifications is that there is no buyer of lands and in that matter the Government has succeeded in pegging down the prices. On there hand, it is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the final notifications was issued in 1981 u/s 4 of the Act and that notification u/s 6 of the Act was going to be issued very shortly, i.e., within the permissible period of three years and hence the impugned notification Cannot be quashed.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned notification so far as it relates to the lands of the Petitioner cannot legally be sustained. There is no quarrel that the land in dispute has been the subject matter of successive notifications since 1972. No plausible and convincing explanation is forthcoming as to why such an inordinate delay has taken place in not completing the acquisition proceedings. It is correct that notification u/s 6 of the Act can be issued within three years of the issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act but, again, it was incumbent on the State to have explained as to why the full period of three years was being taken for issuing the notification u/s 6 of the Act. This delay in issuance of notification u/s 6 of the Act, on the facts of this case, has become very material in view of the fact that notifications have been issued on and off since 1972. The entire delay for which, as earlier observed, there is no convincing explanation leads to only one irresistible conclusion that the impugned notification so far as it relates to the lands involved in the petition, suffers from the vice of malafide.

Consequently, we allow this petition and quash the impugned notification dated 11th March, 1981, Annexure P-1 to the extent it relates to the lands of the Petitioner measuring 16 kanals.

Sd/ Surinder Singh, J.