PARDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(P&H)-2007-12-61
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on December 13,2007

PARDEEP Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. - (1.) BY this common order, we propose to dispose of CWP Nos. 16545, 18588, 18672, 18814, 16832, 16833, 16848, 16849, 16851, 20308 of 2004, and 407 of 2005.
(2.) THE petitioners herein impugn the notifications, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short herein after referred to as "the Act"), dated 29.11.2001 and 28.11.2002 respectively. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are owners in possession of separate parcels of land, situated in village Kundli, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The petitioners have constructed houses, a saw mill, a poultry farm, raised cow sheds etc. and have been residing or carrying on their business therein. The State of Haryana, without considering the nature of structures, existing on the land, issued a notification, under Section 4 of the Act, dated 29.11.2001, proposing to acquire land in villages Nagal Kalan and Kundli for the ostensible public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization as residential and commercial Sector 58, Sonepat. The petitioners filed objections, under Section 5A of the Act on 24.12.2001. The government, however, proceeded to issue a declaration, under Section 6 of the Act, dated 28.11.2002, without deciding objections by the Collector. However, the house of one Bije s/o Giani Ram was released from acquisition but the petitioners' prayer for release of their houses, saw mill, poultry farm, cow sheds, was declined. As a result, the petitioners preferred a representation to the government requesting for release of their land. The District Town Planner, Sonepat forwarded his comments to the Administrator, HUDA, vide a communication, dated 7.3.2003, detailing the constructions, raised by the petitioners. Despite this report, the Land Acquisition Collector served a notice, under Section 9 of the Act, requiring the petitioners to submit their respective claim qua compensation.
(3.) IT is argued that as the petitioners have raised constructions, in the shape of houses, a poultry farm, a saw mill, cow sheds, dharamshala etc. prior to the issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act, the government is obliged to release their land or at least their houses. It is further argued by reference to a site plan that the area, shown in yellow, has been released to a builder. The petitioners' lands, shown in pink, fall within the released area. This land cannot be utilized by the respondents for any purpose and would eventually be diverted to the builder.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.