Sunday, March 7, 2010

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 49 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Writ Petition No.3855 of 1982
Dr. Jagdish Singh Sarkaria & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 12/11/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Partap, Advocate and Mr. B.N.S. Sharma, Advocate; and Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate and Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Advocate
For the petitioners: Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General Haryana with Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General Haryana.
For the HUDA: Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate.
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6--Acquisition of Land--Publication of notification--Date of publication--Date of publication of the Notification, is the date, on which the gazette Notification is published--No other date can be assigned to it and it will be irrelevant to hold an inquiry, when it was made available for circulation to the public at large--In the absence of any reliable evidence to the contrary--No basis for disbelieving the version given by the respondents on oath that the Notification had in fact been published on 24th June, 1980--A presumption attached to the regularity of official functions in the publication of the Notification on the date on which it purports to be published, remained unrebutted--Contention of the petitioners that the Notification was published after 24th June, 1980 but ante dated as if by way of fraud on the provisions of the Act under which the same was issued rejected.
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6--Publication of Notification in locality--Entry in Roznamcha Wakiali contains number of gazettee notification--In pursuance thereof 29 land owners had filed their objections--No malafide levelled against government--Statement of Patwari relied upon regarding dispute of publication of notification incomplete--Held, that substance of notification was published/announced in locality--Entry in the Roznamcha Wakiati was made on 25th June, 1980 contains the number of gazette Notification in pursuance thereof, 29 land owners had filed their objections--No malafide has been leveled against the Government--Substances of Notification was published.
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6--Acquisition of land--Notification--Subsequent notification--Validity of earlier notification--In view of the interim order, Government officials, proceeded to acquire the land of other land owners by issuing fresh Notifications--Action of the respondents in issuing subsequent Notifications does not lead--Held, That subsequent issuance of Notifications, will not supersede the Notifications issued earlier. (P.40)
(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4 & 6--Acquisition of land--Subsequent purchasers--Sale of land and separate agreements of collaboration executed after issuance of notification--Subsequent purchasers and signatories to collaboration agreements not entitled to question validity of notification.
(E) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6--Acquisition of Land--Release of land--Discrimination--Due consideration was given to request made by applications and their collaborator for release of land--Land belonging to applications exclusively planned for economically weaker sections category--No case of individuous discrimination made out--No interference--Due consideration was given to the request made by petitioners No.8 and 9 and their collaborator, for release of the land. It was brought into light that the land, which was released in favour of petitioners No.1 to 3 and Ishwar Chand Aggarwal and others, falls within Part 1 of Sector 20, Panchkula, whereas the land belonging to the applicants falls in Part 2 of Sector 20, Panchkula, which was exclusively planned for economically weaker section category--Application filed by petitioners No.8, 9 and 11, we are of the view that no case of individuous discrimination, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, is made out. (P.48 & 51)
(F) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.226--Public interest litigation--Proper sewerage system--Grievance of petitioners that sewerage and storm water gather in front of their housing societies and emit foul small and cause pollution--Making life of petitioners have become miserable--In reply HUDA stated that sewerage line could not be connected with main sewerage as petitioners to CWP no. 3855 of 1982 and CWP No. 3673 of 1983 were having order of stay of dispossession in their favour--These writ petitions has been decided and order of stay of dispossession is no longer in substance--Authorities who have to lay pipe and connect sewerage pipe of area with main sewerage treatment may proceed immediately--HUDA directed to take all effective adequate steps to redress grievance of petitioners.

------------

No comments:

Post a Comment