- (1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing the notifications under sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the Act") dated 18.10.2000 and 19.10.2000 and award dated 23.3.2002, Annexures P.1 to P.3 respectively being illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the provisions of the Act. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to restore the possession of the land to the petitioner as the same has not been utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner was owner of agricultural land measuring 8 kanals 17 marlas comprised in Rectangle No.27, Khasra No.1/2(6-7, 2/1/2, 2-10) and 2 kanals 2 marlas being 42/374th share out of land measuring 18 kanals 14 marlas comprised in Khewat No.83, Khatoni No.174 purchased by him vide registered sale deed dated 24.6.1997 from Rohtash Kumar of Village Chhapra Khera, Tehsil and District Karnal. The State of Haryana issued notification dated 18.10.2000, Annexure P.1 under Section 4 read with section 17 of the Act for acquiring land of the petitioner for a public purpose namely for the development and utilization of land for cremation ground in Karnal. Notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on 19.10.2000, Annexure P.2. The Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula passed award dated 23.3.2002, Annexure P.3 qua the land of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the land has not been utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired since the date of its acquisition and passing of the award. Even now the land is not being used for the said purpose. Respondent No.4 Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) is leasing out the said land to different persons from the date of the passing of the award. The petitioner had received the compensation as per the award. He is willing to deposit the entire compensation in case the respondents restore the possession of the said land to him. The petitioner requested the respondent authorities for releasing his land but in vain. The petitioner filed a civil suit in the year 2006 for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. It was dismissed on 11.11.2011 on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the possession of the land was with him and the said land was not being used for the purpose for which it was acquired. Hence the instant writ petition with the prayer as mentioned above.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.;