IMPORTANT POINT
Acquisition of Land--Mere issuance of a notification under Section 17(1) and 17(2) would not be suffice for dispensing with the filing of objections unless a notification under Section 17(4) showing application of mind by the Government is issued.
Acquisition of Land--No justification for acquire land of petitioners when Government land is available--Impugned notification quashed.

M.M. Kumar, J.:- The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notification dated 28.11.2007 (P-5) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration of the same date made under Section 6 read with Section 17(2)(c) and 17(4) of the Act (P-6). The public purpose for acquisition of land as per the notifications is construction of approach road from National Highway-65 to Haryana Thermal Power Plant, Hisar [now named as ‘2 x 600 MW Rajiv Gandhi Thermal Power Plant’ (for brevity, ‘Thermal Power Plant’)].

2. Brief facts of the case are that the land comprised in Rect. No. 282//14Min, 15Min and Rect. No. 283//20Min, situated in village Khedar, Sub Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar, is the subject matter of dispute in the present case. Petitioner No. 1-Smt. Punita Chaudhary owned land comprised in Rec. No. 282//14Min, 15Min, situated in village Khedar, Sub Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar, which she leased out for 99 years in favour of Alliance Education Society petitioner No. 2, vide registered sale deed dated 10.9.2007. On the land comprised in Rect. No. 283/20Min a factory, namely, Amba Polymer exists, which was purchased by petitioner No. 3-Sanjay Makhija from the Haryana Financial Corporation, vide conveyance deed dated 9.3.2004.

3. It is claimed that petitioner No. 2 Society raised construction after obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Gram Panchayat because the land does not fall within the controlled area so as to be hit by the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. Accordingly, petitioner No. 2 Society has raised construction of college building for running College of Education, namely, Gurudham College of Education. On 18.10.2007, a written request was made by the petitioner No. 2 Society to the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for grant of recognition for establishing a new institution for conduct of B.Ed. course, which is pending consideration as is evident from letters dated 12.11.2007 and 15.1.2008 (P-2 & P-3). The factory, namely, Amba Polymer in Rect. No. 283/20Min, which is part of the same land and owned by petitioner No. 3, has been reflected on the site plan in green colour and Marked ‘A’ & ‘B’ (P-4).

4. The petitioners have asserted that two separate notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17(2)(c) and 17(4) of the Act, proposing to acquire land in question, have been issued on 28.11.2007. They have alleged that if the proposed acquisition is permitted then it would divide the college building rendering it unfit for the purpose of education as also the factory owned by petitioner No. 3. They have disputed invocation of urgency provision and have also pointed out that already a kacha rasta on the Government land leading from NH-65 Hisar-Barwala Road to the Thermal Power Plant is available, which is Marked ‘C’ on the site plan (P-4), which could easily be used by the respondents without damaging the factory premises and dividing the college building of petitioner No. 2 Society.

5. Three separate written statements have been filed. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 it has been asserted that the process of acquisition was started on 29.8.2007 by sending draft notification to the State Government and in response notifications under Section 4 and 6 read with Section 17 were issued on 28.11.2007. Therefore, the no objection certificate dated 15.10.2007 obtained by petitioner No. 2 Society from the Gram Panchayat for construction of college building would be rendered insignificant. It has also been pointed out that construction of college building, in fact, had started during or after commencement of acquisition proceedings. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also averred that building could not have been constructed after obtaining no objection certificate from the Gram Panchayat on 15.10.2007 and construction cou