A.L.BAHRI, J. - (1.) VIDE this order two writ petitions i.e. C.W.P. No. 5175 of 1990 titled as Dilbagh Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another and C.W.P. No. 6522 of 1990 titled as Dharam Pal and others v. State of Haryana and Others are being disposed of as the facts are common. The facts are given from the writ petition of Dilbagh Singh.
(2.) THIS writ petition deserves to be allowed for the simple reason that procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act for completing the acquisition proceedings was not followed and that acquisition proceedings otherwise lapsed as no compensation for the superstructures existing on the land was paid by making the award within the stipulated time. The facts of the case are, in brief, are as under :- The process to acquire the land of the petitioners-Dilbagh Singh and others started in the year 1970 by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, the proceedings were allowed to lapse. This exercise was repeated in 1973 and thereafter in 1982. Fresh notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on April 21, 1987, Annexure P-1 which is impugned in this writ petition. Dilbagh Singh and others raised objections to the acquisition proceedings. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on April 20, 1988 followed by award for the land made on April 12, 1990. Annexure P-2 is objections; Annexure P-3 is notification issued under Section 6 of the Act; Annexure P-4 is the notice issued under Section 9 of the Act and Annexure P-5 contains objections under Section 9 of the Act, submitted by the petitioners to the acquisition proceedings. The challenge to the acquisition proceedings is on different grounds, inter alia, that successive attempts were being made to freeze the price of the acquired land and proceedings were allowed to lapse; large chunk of the land was released, whereas, petitioners' land was not released; no notice or hearing was allowed to the petitioners on objections being filed; and no decision was taken since there existing construction on the land in dispute measuring 8 kanals in rectangle number 43 khasra No. 7 and that land was to be released under the policy decision of the Government. In the written statement filed on October 25, 1990 by the Land Acquisition Collector, it was stated that notices of hearing on objections filed under Section 5A were issued to Takhat Singh vide No. 1802 dated March 23, 1990. With regard to the construction, it was stated that no kothi of the petitioner existed at the time of notification under Section 6 of the Act. The construction work in killa number 43/7 was taken up after the notification under Section 6 of the Act, was issued. From the official record brought, the State counsel has pointed out that compensation for the superstructures was granted under award made on January 11, 1991, with regard to land covered by rectangle No. 43/7.
(3.) FROM the facts as stated, it is clear that notices on the objections, were issued on March 23, 1990 as mentioned in para 10 of the written statement, which is after the date of notification issued under Section 6 of the Act i.e. April 20, 1988. Sections 5-A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act make it clear that on the objections to the acquisition proceedings, notice, hearing and decision were to be made by the appropriate authority and considering the same notification under Section 6 of the Act was required to be issued. Issuing such notices after the date of notification is merely a farce.;