Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate with Ms. Nisha Rana, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Pardeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of notification dated 8.4.1988 (Annexure P-1), and, also seek the quashing of notification dated 10.10.1988 (Annexure P-2). The said notifications were respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894'). The consequent thereto award dated 5.10.1990 (Annexure P-3) has also been asked to be quashed, and, set aside.

2. The above espoused writ claims become founded upon the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013'), whereunders the petitioners become empowered to claim the making of a lapsing declaration.

Grounds raised in the instant petition

3. The grounds, as raised in the instant petition by the petitioners, are that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, was required to be published in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality out of which, one is required to be in the regional language. However, the mandatory requirements of Section 4 of the Act of 1894, regarding the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, were not complied with. It is further averred in the petition, that though the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published in the official gazette, however, neither any publication became conducted nor any notice was given at the convenient place. Moreover, the award dated 5.10.1990 was pronounced by the Collector concerned, without any prior notice to the affected persons. It is further averred in the petition, that prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, the petition lands were commonly owned by the petitioners along with their ancestors, and, they have been living in two khasra numbers by constructing their houses.

Reasons for rejecting the above grounds

4. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the above claimed reliefs are liable to be declined.

5. From a perusal of the reply on affidavit, furnished to the instant petition, it is evident, that despite an apposite opportunity being granted to the land losers concerned, yet the petitioners rather not availing the said opportunity nor theirs preferring objections in terms of Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, before the Collector concerned. In the face of abandonment of the said opportunity by the petitioners, to thus prefer objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, before the Collector concerned, thereby theirs' said made abandonments, thus tantamounts to theirs acquiescing to the valid launching of the acquisition proceedings, besides fosters a further conclusion, that the petitioners become estopped to claim before this Court, that either they became forestalled to raise objections or the said objections became summarily dismissed.

6. Moreover, it has also been stated in the reply on affidavit, that the notification dated 8.4.1988 issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, was got published in the daily leading news papers, and, thereafter the munadi was also got conducted in the locality by beat of drums, besides a report in this regard was also made which became reduced into writing vide rapat no. 445 dated 14.4.1988, and, was also pasted at various convenient places i.e. the offices of Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estates Haryana Gurgaon, Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon, and Halqa Patwari, Tehsil Office, SDM Office etc.

7. Furthermore on a reading of reply, it is revealed, that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was also got published in the daily leading newspapers on 18.10.1988. In addition, munadi was also got conducted by beat of drums in the locality concerned, and, a report to that effect was recorded by the Halqa Patwari. It is also stated in the reply, that the substances of declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 were also placed at the convenient pla