Satya Narain Alwal and Others vs The State of Haryana and Others

R.N. Mittal, J.—Briefly, the case of the Petitioners is that a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated March 12. 1973 with respect to the property in dispute was published in the Government gazette. They filed objections within a period of 30 days after the issuance of the notice before the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula. Thereafter, Ram Narain, father of the Petitioners received a notice dated nil from the Land Acquisition collector directing him to appear before him on May 10, 1973 at 8 A.M. Kesho Ram Mukhtiar-i-am of the father of the Petitioners appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector to record his statement and allowed him to go. Thereafter, it is alleged, that no order was conveyed to him under the aforesaid Act.

The case of the Petitioners further is that on March 25, 1975 they gave the property in dispute on lease to Ramesh Gautam Manager, Shiksha Niketan Bhiwani for opening a Branch of Shiksha Niketan in it. It is alleged that the Branch was opened on March 31, 1975 in a function presided over by Dr. P.D. Girdhar. It is further said that on April 4, 1975, the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, along with police force entered into the property, broke open the locks and removed the articles such as tables chairs, benches, etc. kept there by the school. The action of the Superintendent of Police has been challenged inter alia on the ground that the property was not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and that if any, action had been taken under the Haryana Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act) it was done without following the proper procedure. The writ petition has been contested by the Respondents inter alia on the ground that the property had been requisitioned under the 1973 Act and a notice u/s 3 was sent to the Mukhtiar-i-am of the Petitioners, who refused to accept it. Consequently, the possession of the property was taken. It is further stated that no furniture as alleged by the Petitioners was found in it at the time of taking the possession.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that to requisition a property u/s 3 of the 1973 Act, it was incumbent on the Deputy Commissioner to have served a notice under that section upon the Petitioners. According to him, no notice was served upon either the Petitioners or their Mukhtiar-i-am and consequently the proceedings of taking possession of the property are illegal and liable to be quashed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length. However, I agree with the contention of learned Counsel for the Petitioners. The Petitioners have stated in the writ petition that no notice u/s 3 of the 1973 Act was served upon them or their Mukhtiar-i-am. The Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani, in his affidavit dated May 6, 1975 denied the aforesaid fact and stated that a notice u/s 3 was issued to the Petitioners through Kesho Ram Mukhtiar-i-am on February 4, 1975. It was sent for service through peons. When they reached the place of Mukhtiar-i-am he refused to accept it. Consequently, they made a report accordingly. The Deputy Commissioner thereafter filed an additional affidavit dated July 10, 1975 in which he further stated that the proceedings u/s 3 of the 1973 Act were initiated at the request of Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani. He issued notice u/s 3 and it was the practice not to make an entry regarding issuance of the notice in the despatch register and not to utilize the service of the process serving agency as no process fee is paid in such cases. Therefore, no entry was made about the issuance of the notice in the despatch register. He further stated that the notices were sent through Paras Ram and Om Parkash peons of the Deputy Commissioner''s Office. He also annexed their affidavits along with his affidavit.

In reply to the affidavit of the Deputy Commissioner, a replication was filed by Kesho Ram, Mukatiar-i-am stating that in other cases the notices u/s 3 of the 1973 Act bore the despatch number. He also annexed some of the notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner which too bore the despatch numbers. From the affidavits and counter affidavits it is evident that the notice u/s 3 of the 1973 Act did not bear the despatch number of the despatch register. The affidavits of both the parties regarding the service of the Mukhtiar- i-am are contradictory.

It is now to be seen whether the notice u/s 3 of the 1973 Act was issued by the Deputy Commissioner and served on the Petitioners on the dates when it is purported to have been issued and served. It is common knowledge that the letters and other communications issued and received by the Government Offices are entered in the despatch and receipt registers. The Office of the Deputy Commissioner is no exception to this rule. It is, however, curious that regarding the notice u/s 3 in the present case the said procedure was not followed. The Deputy Commissioner in the affidavit stated that there was no practice of entering such notices in the despatch register His affidavit, however stands falsified from similar notices marked as Annexures P. 3 dated May 31, 1973, P. 5 dated June 25, 1973, P. 8 dated January 11, 1974, issued to other persons. All the said notices bear the despatch numbers If the practice in the office of the Deputy Commissioner was that the notices u/s 3 were not required to be entered in the despatch register, it is not understandable how the aforesaid notices bore despatch numbers. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner to explain his position. From the aforesaid circumstances it can be safely concluded that no notice u/s 3 was issued by the Deputy Commissioner at the time when it is purported to have been issued. The question of service of the notice on Mukhtiar-i-am of the Petitioners, therefore, could not arise on February 6 1975. The Deputy Commissioner, it appears, filed affidavit without ascertaining the correct position. Consequently, no reliance can be placed on his affidavit and also those of the peons. It was expected of them to have acted in an upright and just manner It cannot be disputed that if no notice u/s 3 is served upon the owner of the property, all the subsequent proceedings are illegal. In the aforesaid situation, I am of the view, that requisitioning of the property in the present case, is illegal.

For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the writ petition with costs and hold that the requisitioning proceedings are illegal. Counsel fee Rs. 300/-.