Violation of Section 6 proviso (ii) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, constitutes grounds for quashing the notification and declaration, along with all consequential proceedings.

M.M. Kumar, J. - This order shall dispose of CWP No. 10570, 6154, 7680, and 8087 of 2007 because all the petitions arise out of same notifications acquiring the land of the petitioners. However, facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 10570 of 2006. The petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and have prayed for quashing notification Sated 23.5.2001 (Annexure P.3) and declaration dated 6.5.2004 issued under Section 6 (Annexure P.8) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and all consequential proceedings on the basis of the aforementioned notification.

2. When the matter came up for consideration on 12.2.2008. Learned State Counsel has sought time to seek instructions for the course of action to be adopted by the respondents because prima facie there was flagrant violation of the provisions of the Act, as no declaration could be issued under Section 6 of the Act after the expiry of period of one year from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Keeping aforesaid flagrant violation in view on 12.2.2008, we had passed the following order:-

"It is undisputed that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity the Act) in respect of land in question was issued on 23.5.2001 (P.3) and notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on the next day i.e. 24.5.2001 (P.4). The petitioner has filed C.W.P. No. 13391 of 2001 which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 8.7.2002 (P6). The Division Bench in its order dated 8.7.2002 had set aside the declaration issued under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act and the petitioner was given the right to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Now, the declaration has been issued under Section 6 of the Act on 6.5.2004 which is far beyond the period of one year even if notification under Section 4 of the Act is presumed to be issued on 8.7.2002 when the writ petition was decided. Therefore, the notification dated 23.5.2001 issued under Section 4 or the declaration issued on 6.5.2004 under Section 6 (P.9) cannot survive legal scrutiny."

Ms. Palika Monga, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana requests for a short adjournment to seek instructions for the course of action to be adopted by the respondents.

List again on 18.2.2008.

To be shown in the urgent list.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.

3. On the presumed hearing today, learned State counsel has not been able to make any submission with regard to the course of action which may be adopted by the respondents except stating that objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act were decided on 6.9.2002.

4. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that once notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued after the expiry of period of one year then there is flagrant violation of Section 6 proviso (ii) of the Act. In the present case notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.5.2001 (Annexure P.2) and notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued a day later on 24.5.2001 (Annexure P.3). The petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 13391 of 2001. The Division Bench vide its order dated 8.7.2002 (Annexure P.6) set aside the invoking of urgency provisions and declaration issued under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. As a consequence the petitioners were given the right to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. They filed objections which were accordingly decided on 6.9.2002. Thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued on 6.5.2004 which apparently is far beyond the period of one year from the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. By no stretch of imagination the declaration issued on 6.5.2004 (Annexure P.8) under Section 6 of the Act could stand judicial scrutiny. The right of the petitioners would be