SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(P&H) 427

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar and Jitendra Chauhan JJ.
Bhopu
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 16832 of 2003,17279 of 2003,
Decided On : JANUARY 18, 2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of land for public purpose--Mere existence or unforeseen emergency would not by itself be sufficient for dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.17 & 5-A--Acquisition of land for public purpose--Urgency clause--Dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A--An opinion required to be formed by State Government that along with existence of urgency or unforeseen emergency contemplated by Section 17(1) and 17(2) there is also a need for dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry--Mere existence or unforeseen emergency would not by itself be sufficient for dispensing with Section 5-A inquiry--Even in cases of urgency or emergency right to title objections and grant of an opportunity to hearing under Section 5-A of Act may be kept intact. (P.16)

       (B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.17 & 5-A--Acquisition of land for public purpose--Urgency clause--Dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A--No decision with regard to dispensing with inquiry under Section 5-A--Section 17(4) of Act invoked only to defeat vital rights of hearing of hearing and filing and filing objections by land owners--Impugned notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 quashed qua petitioner. (P.17 & 19)

       

Judgment

M.M.KUMAR, J.

1. This order shall dispose of two petitions, namely, CWP Nos.16832 and 17279 of 2003 because notifications acquiring the land in both cases are the same. However, facts are being referred from CWP No.16832 of 2003. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the notification dated 25.6.2002 (P-7), issued under Sec.4 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the Act); land acquisition notices, dated 29.6.2002 and 1.7.2002 (P-8 and P-11); Rapat Rojnamcha for the year 2001-02 (P-9 and P-12); and declaration under Sec.6 of the Act, dated 26.6.2002 (P-10 ).

2. Facts may first be noticed. The petitioners are co-owners of the land situated in the revenue estate of Village Amarheri, Tehsil and District Jind. It is claimed that on 7.7.1989, petitioner No.1 has purchased the land in question vide registered sale deed No.1467 and built up four houses, which abut a road leading to Jind from the village. In the aforementioned houses four sons of petitioner No.1 and their families are residing separately. Three site plans of the houses have been placed on record (P-4 to P-6 ). It has further been stated that the houses are assessed to house tax by the Municipal Council, Jind and house tax is being deposited regularly by the petitioners. Besides this, electricity connections have also been provided in the said houses and in one house there is also a telephone connection.

3. A notification under Sec.4 of the Act for acquiring 20.27 acres of land was issued by the respondent State on 25.6.2002 for a public purpose, namely, water Works, Sector 6, Jind, in the area of village Amerheri, Hadbast No.80, tehsil and District Jind and village Jind, Hadbast No.79, Tehsil and District jind. Since the aforementioned land was urgently required, therefore, the provisions of Sub-Section (1) of Sec.17 of the Act were invoked and the requirement of filing of objections under Sec.5a of the Act was dispensed with (P-7 ). As per the requirement of Sec.4 of the Act, the aforementioned notification was also published in the two daily newspapers, namely, danik pathak Paksh (Hindi), dated 29.6.2002 (P-8) and the Indian Express (English), dated 28.6.2002. On 1.7.2002, the substance of the notification was also entered in the Rapat Rojnamcha (P-9 ).

4. The petitioners have asserted that as per the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Sec.17 of the Act, a declaration under section 6 of the Act could only be made only after the last date of publication of notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Act. However, in the present case without waiting for the publication of the notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Act either in the two newspapers circulating in the locality or the collector giving cause public notice of the substance of the notification to be given at convenient places in the locality, declaration under Sec.6 of the act has been issued on 26.6.2002, which was published in the Haryana Government gazette Extraordinary on the same date (P-10 ). In this manner, the land of the petitioners has been acquired under the said acquisition. On 1.7.2002, in terms of Sec.6 (2), the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act was published in one newspaper i. e. dainik Pathak Paksh dated 1.7.2002 (P-11 ). The substance of the declaration under Sec.6 by public notice at the convenient places in the locality was caused by the Collector-respondent No.2 on 2.7.2002. An entry in the Rapat Rojnamcha was also entered at Sr. No.398 (P-12 ).

5. It has further been alleged by the petitioners that after about 9 months, notices dated 9.4.2003 were issued by the Collector to all the interested persons including the petitioners under Sec.9 of the Act requiring them to appear before him on 9.5.2003 at 11 a. m. at PWD Rest House, Jind, either in person or through authorised representative to state if the name/share/khasra number etc. are not as per the record and if so, then produce a copy of jamabandi/mutation etc. so that record could be cor



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top