- (1.) The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent authorities not to dispossess him from the land measuring 16 kanals 1 marla situated within the revenue estate of Village Khaytra, Hadbast No.89, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents not to demolish the petitioner's residential house situated on the said land.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The Haryana Government, Urban Estate Department issued notification dated 23.2.2007, Annexure P.1 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, "the Act") for acqusition of agricultural land of the petitioner for the purpose of development of residential, commercial Institutional, Open Space, Sector roads and Green Belt, Sector 9, Mahendergarh. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 20.2.2008, Annexure P.2. The award was passed on 19.2.2010, Anenxure P.3. According to the petitioner, the possession of the land is with him and he has erected wall on the said land. Notification under section 4 of the Act was not issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It was not published in the Official gazette and in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality where the land is situated. Even notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 20.2.2008 after about 362 days of the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. The petitioner had also filed CWP No.24961 of 2013 for quashing the notifications issued by the Government. Vide order dated 27.1.2014, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to resurvey the land of the petitioner and if the plea taken by the petitioner was found to be correct, a report be sent to the appropriate authority to take decision in accordance with law and the government policies. Having received no response, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.1647 of 2014 in which notice was issued and a direction was issued that if the order 27.1.2014 was not complied with within a period of three weeks, contempt proceedings shall be intiated against the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents passed order dated 16.7.2014, Annexure P.6 that the structure raised on the impugned land was not a residential house and thus the case of the petitioner did not fall under the policy of the Government. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioner.
(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of Land Acqusition Collector, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, respondent No.4 wherein it has been inter alia stated that the award was announced on 19.2.2010 and the possession was handed over to the representative of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on the same day. Thus, the land completely vests in HUDA free from all encumbrances. Further in para 10 of the reply in preliminary objections, it has been stated that the land was vacant at the time of issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act on 23.2.2007. The petitioner raised illegal construction in temporary manner after the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. Further, the area in disptue has already been notified as controlled area under Section 4(1)(a) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (in short, "the 1963 Act"). The petitioner has raised unauthorised construction evading conversion and development charges. Thus, he is not entitled to any benefit. Reliance was palced on judgment of the Apex Court in Tek Ram Dahiya vs. State of Haryana, SLP (Civil) No.28469 of 2011 dated 31.10.2011. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been mde.;