Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) BY this order we propose to dispose of three writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 15086 of 2005 titled 'Sanjeev Maini & another vs. State of Haryana & others', CWP No. 881 of 2004 titled 'M/s Super Alloys Products vs. The State of Haryana & others' and CWP No. 882 of 2004 titled M/s Super Ceramic Products and another vs. The State of Haryana & others, as issues involved therein are identical. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued on 23.1.2001 by the State of Haryana proposing to acquire an area of 253 acres, 4 Kanals, 2 Marias of land for a public purpose for development of Industrial estate in village Sankhol, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar at public expenses. As per the allegations in the writ petition and which has substantial weight are that there was no publication in the newspapers as mandated under Section 4 of the Act. However, as per the assertions of the respondent / State it was published in two newspapers namely 'Bharat Janani' and 'Hari Bhoomi'. As the petitioners were not aware of the said notification, objections under Section 5A of the Act were not filed by them. Thereafter declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.1.2002 for an area of 157 acres, 7 Kanals and 19 Marias. Award was passed on 20.1.2004 for land measuring 154 Acres, 4 Kanals and 1 Maria.
(2.) PETITIONERS in CWP No. 881 & 882 of 2004 approached this Court by filing writ petitions on 18.1.2004, which came up for hearing before this Court on 20.1.2004, when notice of motion was issued and dispossession of the petitioners was stayed. CWP No. 15086 of 2005 was filed on 19.9.2005, which was listed for hearing on 22.9.2005 and dispossession of the petitioners was stayed by this Court on the said date. Challenge to the notifications and the award in these writ petitions is based on various grounds, out of which the primary ground, which has been pressed into service at the time of hearing was noncompliance of Section 4 of the Act, on the ground that the notification was mandated to be published in two newspapers, which on enquiry by the petitioners, was informed to them that it was published in two Hindi newspapers i.e. 'Bharat Janani' and 'Hari Bhoomi' on 19.2.2001 and 13.2.2001 respectively. It is the Contention of the petitioners that newspaper 'Bharat Janani' had absolutely no circulation and it is only existing on papers. As regards 'Hari Bhoomi', it has been stated that it has very less circulation inasmuch as it had only 70 copies in circulation in the entire Tehsil of Bahadurgarh during January/February 2001 i.e. the relevant time. It has further been asserted that even proclamation was not done in the locality, which led to the petitioners losing their valuable right of filing objections under Section 5A of the Act. Reliance has been placed on the report submitted on the enquiry marked by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P -35, with covering letter as Annexure P -34. Wherein as per the report newspaper 'Hari Bhoomi' was in circulation, whereas newspaper' Bharat Janani' was not in circulation and not even a single copy of the newspaper was available either with the news agencies, hawkers, shopkeepers, people or Library and none had heard and seen this newspaper. On the basis of this report, the assertion had been made that the provisions of Section 4 of the Act have not been complied with vitiating the consequential proceedings resulting in the passing of the award. Ground of discrimination has also been pressed into service on the assertion that it has been acknowledged that the petitioners are running units over the land which is being sought to be acquired for industrial purposes and similarly placed 43 industrial units have been released from acquisition, whereas the land of the petitioners have been acquired.
(3.) THE claims of the petitioners stand disputed by the respondents, who have asserted that proper compliance of provisions of Section 4 of the Act has been made and the petitioners having not filed the objections under Section 5A of the Act and have approached the Court after passing of the award, are not entitled to any benefit. It has further been asserted that the possession of the land had been taken by the State and handed over to Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the HSIIDC) on the date of passing of the award i.e. 20.1.2004. This has been stated by the counsel for the State on the basis of Rapat Roznamcha, copy of which has been produced on record at the time of arguments.;