ORDER

CAs Nos. 1148, 1144, 1400, 3426 of 2003 and SLPs (C) Nos. 9927, 9664 and 12084 of2003, 9621, 9154 and 9697 of2004

1.Delay condoned.

2.Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

3. An area of about 299.25 acres of land was notified on 5-5-1997 for acquisition for residential, commercial and institutional purposes under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). The appellants filed objections for the proposed acquisition in respect of their pieces of land, raising several contentions including the one that they have put up structures on their lands prior to the issuance of Section 4(1) notification and actually they were living therein. When their objections were rejected and declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act, they filed writ petitions in the High Court raising various grounds inter alia contending that in the case of certain lands, where the structures were put up, they were released from acquisition and the same yardstick was not applied in their cases. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, they are in appeals before this Court.

4. At the outset, Shri L. Nageswara Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that this Court in a similar situation pertaining to the acquisition of the land by the very authorities, pursuant to a different notification in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana1 took the view that wherever the structures were there, they could be considered by the authorities for excluding from acquisition. He submitted that the appeals may be disposed of accordingly by giving directions as was done in the aforementioned case.

5. In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondents urged that the decision of this Court aforementioned cannot be applied to the facts of these cases; that was a case where the contentions raised by the appellants were a accepted because there was no rationale for classifying the structures of different categories, namely, Classes J>:, B and C. The learned counsel for the appellants also made submissions justifying the acquisition. It may be mentioned here, the learned counsel for the appellants at the outset submitted that the appellants do not challenge the acquisition proceedings any more and they would be satisfied only if the structures put up by them are excluded b from the acquisition. We asked the learned counsel for the respondents specifically as to what would be the difficulty in case the structures put up by the appellants prior to issuance of Section 4(1) notification was excluded from the acquisition. He submitted that it may come in the way of planned development area.

6. This Court in a similar situation, though on a different ground, dealing with the structures of three different classes, found that there was no justification to exclude the structures of Class J>: only and not to exclude structures of Classes B and C. In that background, and on the facts of those cases, gave the directions as contained in paragraph 12 of the aforementioned casel which reads: (SCC p. 549)

"12. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgments under challenge are set aside, the orders passed by the State Government rejecting the representation of the appellants are quashed. The Secretary, Urban Estates Department, State of Haryana, Respondent 1 herein, is directed to consider the objection petitions filed by the appellants for exclusion of their properties from acquisition and pass appropriate order excluding such lands having structures on them excepting any land which is required for construction of a road or hospital. Respondent 1 shall give opportunity of hearing to the appellants before taking the decision. The exercise shall be completed expeditiously if possible within three months. There will, however, be no order for costs."

7. In the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court, the respondents have stated thus:

"2. That in reply to para 2 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioners are