Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) THE State of Haryana has filed this appeal against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on March 21, 2007, ordering release of 5 Marlas of land falling in Khasra No. 190.
(2.) COUNSEL for the parties heard. Perusal of record indicates that the Respondent is owner of the land total measuring 10 Marlas falling in contiguous Khasras No. 189 and 190. When notification to acquire that land was issued on August 27, 1981, the Respondent filed objection under Section 5 -A of the Act. Some how or the other, she wrongly mentioned that her house exist in Khasra No. 190. Be that as it may, the Land Acquisition Collector visited the spot and found as a matter of fact that the house exists in land falling in Khasra No. 189, i.e. 5 Marlas of land and the remaining 5 Marlas of land falling in Khasra No. 190 was lying vacant and accordingly it was ordered to be acquired. The area under construction was recommended for release, which accordingly was exempted from acquisition.
(3.) UNDER the circumstances given above, the Respondent came to this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 744 of 1984, which was allowed vide the impugned judgment on March 21, 2007, by observing as under: Having considered the matter, I find that it is the admitted case that the Petitioner, in fact, filed a specific objection asserting therein that she had constructed a house over the land in dispute in which the family is residing and, therefore, the same be not acquired. A perusal of the objections (Exhibit A -1), however, shows that Khasra No. 109 has been mentioned and area given therein is 0K -5M. A perusal of Exhibit A -2 also discloses that the matter was dealt with by the Land Acquisition Collector and it was recommended that the plot on which the house had been constructed be released from acquisition as the structure was for residential purposes. That facts as emanate from the record, when cumulatively considered, show that the Petitioner is owner of a contiguous piece of land, total measuring 10 marlas. Out of this, land measuring 5 marlas falls in Khasra No. 189 whereas remaining 5 marlas land falls in Khasra No. 190, constituting one plot. On filing objections, the site was indeed inspected and although wrong khasra number was given by the Petitioner in the objections filed under Section 5A of the Act, it has been noticed that the Khasra number on which the residential house stood constructed falls in Khasra No. 189. It has been observed by the concerned officer in the inspection note that it consists of three pucca rooms for residential purposes and the same be released and the rest of the land be acquired. Having given my considered thought to the facts as pleaded, argued and the record made available in the Court, it stands established that the Respondents could locate the error in mentioning of Khasra number. This is clear on a perusal of Exhibit A -2. This action is appreciable that although wrong Khasra number had been given, however, considering the specific objection having been filed to the effect that the Petitioner needs the structure for her residential use, 5 marlas land comprised in Khasra No. 189 has not been acquired. It is further clear from the facts that 5 marlas land comprised in Khasra No. 190 that stands acquired, is the area which is not under construction. I find that no adjoining open space has been left for proper ingress and egress and for courtyard and other common purposes of the family and, therefore, the house cannot be used for the purpose for which it has been left out of acquisition. The purpose for which the land has been released itself, therefore, has not been served by the action of the Respondents. To my mind, substantial injustice would be caused if the Petitioner is left only with 5 marlas of land which is under actual construction and no land is left as open area for use enjoyment of the house. The law is to be read to achieve justice. The action of the Respondent in not releasing the land falling in Khasra No. 190 measuring 5 marlas has caused manifest injustice as relevant considerations have not been taken into account. The other relevant aspect is that, considering the site plan of the area which has been produced in court, even the scheme or planned development will not be disturbed if 5 marlas land falling in Khasra No. 190 is also left out. In the facts of this case, the technical objection raised by the Respondents to the effect that the objection under Section 5A of the Act was filed only with respect to 5 marlas of land cannot be accepted. This is particularly so when the Respondents had already taken a decision to release land for residential use of the Petitioner. The purpose and intent of the Respondents to release land from acquisition for residential purposes itself stands defeated if the residential house cannot be put to use. The possession of the Petitioner over Khasra No. 190 has already been protected vide order dated 9 -2 -1984. Considering the above, the petition is allowed, acquisition/Notification (Annexure P -2) issued under Section 6 of the Act qua Khasra No. 190 in which 5 marlas land of the Petitioner falls, is hereby quashed with no order as to costs.;