Land acquisition requires adherence to statutory procedures; failure to file objections negates claims of discrimination or exemption, and public necessity prevails over private interests.

JUDGMENT

Justice Mr. Sureshwar Thakur.

Since all the writ petitions arise from a common notification, and, a common declaration, as became issued respectively under sections 4 and 6 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'), and, as became respectively issued on 15.12.2006 and on 14.12.2007. Moreover, since all the writ petitions are covered by common thereto award(s), as became passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector concerned on 30.11.2009, in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1894, therefore, they are all amenable for being decided through a common verdict. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from the lead writ petition, i.e. CWP- 7646-2016.

2. The primary ground, as raised in the writ petition for quashing of the notification and declaration (supra), becomes founded upon:- (a) invidious discrimination becoming practiced by the respondent(s) concerned in not exempting the disputed lands from acquisition, despite similarly situated lands becoming released from acquisition; (b) that in terms of Section 101-A, as occurs in The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and, as became inserted therein through Haryana Act No.21 of 2018, thus the petition lands being declared to be "unviable" and/or "non-essential" for acquisition.

3. Apparently, the petitioners stake a claim for the acquired lands becoming exempted from acquisition, thus in terms of a policy dated 24.1.2011. However, in the said policy, the claim(s) for releases from acquisition, thus could become well considered, only when objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 were filed by the aggrieved estate-holders concerned, thus before the learned Collector concerned. Moreover, the further imperative condition, as enshrined in the said policy, makes speakings that the construction, if any, thus proposed to be exempted from acquisition, rather is required to be cogently established to be raised on the acquired lands, but before the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.

4. It is in the above regard, a reading of reply on affidavit of Rajender Kumar, Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Rohtak, which occurs at page No.100 of the paper book, reveals that the said objections never became filed by the petitioners. Therefore, for the non filing of the said objections, the present petitioners cannot claim the benefit of the policy (supra), as the filing of the apposite thereunders objections, but was imperative for the petitioners, for theirs ably urging before this Court, that despite the relevant constructions evidently existing on the acquired lands, prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, yet the said constructions becoming not considered to be released from acquisition, thus in terms of the apposite policy, nor also the petitioners can argue before this Court, that the acquired lands be released from acquisition, thus on the premise, that the other purported similarly situated lands vis-a-vis the petitioners' lands, rather becoming released from acquisition.

5. Since the objections, as stated (supra), became not filed, therefore it brings forth an inevitable conclusion from this Court, that thereby even the purported ground qua perpetration of invidious discrimination by the respondent(s) concerned, as, comprised in theirs not releasing the petition lands, despite theirs releasing the acquired lands of similarly situated estate-holders concerned, but is a completely unworthy s