R.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly, the case of the Petitioners is that a notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated March 12. 1973 with respect to the property in dispute was published in the Government gazette. They filed objections within a period of 30 days after the issuance of the notice before the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula. Thereafter, Ram Narain, father of the Petitioners received a notice dated nil from the Land Acquisition collector directing him to appear before him on May 10, 1973 at 8 A.M. Kesho Ram Mukhtiar -i -am of the father of the Petitioners appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector to record his statement and allowed him to go. Thereafter, it is alleged, that no order was conveyed to him under the aforesaid Act.
(2.) The case of the Petitioners further is that on March 25, 1975 they gave the property in dispute on lease to Ramesh Gautam Manager, Shiksha Niketan Bhiwani for opening a Branch of Shiksha Niketan in it. It is alleged that the Branch was opened on March 31, 1975 in a function presided over by Dr. P.D. Girdhar. It is further said that on April 4, 1975, the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, along with police force entered into the property, broke open the locks and removed the articles such as tables chairs, benches, etc. kept there by the school. The action of the Superintendent of Police has been challenged inter alia on the ground that the property was not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and that if any, action had been taken under the Haryana Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act) it was done without following the proper procedure. The writ petition has been contested by the Respondents inter alia on the ground that the property had been requisitioned under the 1973 Act and a notice under Sec. 3 was sent to the Mukhtiar -i -am of the Petitioners, who refused to accept it. Consequently, the possession of the property was taken. It is further stated that no furniture as alleged by the Petitioners was found in it at the time of taking the possession.
(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that to requisition a property under Sec. 3 of the 1973 Act, it was incumbent on the Deputy Commissioner to have served a notice under that Sec. upon the Petitioners. According to him, no notice was served upon either the Petitioners or their Mukhtiar -i -am and consequently the proceedings of taking possession of the property are illegal and liable to be quashed.;