Kuldip Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sumeet Jain, Advocate. M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.10686, 16486 of 2007, 9997 of 2006 and CWP No.17179 of 2006 as common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions. Facts are being taken from CWP No. 16486 of 2007. Challenge in these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing notification dated 15.12.2004 ( Annexure P.2) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and notification dated 9.1.2006 ( Annexure P.4) issued under Section 6 of the Act. It has also been prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to release the land of the petitioners from acquisition. When the matter came up for consideration on 28.1.2008, we have dealt with three submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and has issued notice of motion only on one of the submissions. The order dated 28.1.2008 reads thus: CWP No. 16486 of 2007 2 “ Learned counsel for the petitioners has made three submissions to challenge notification dated 15.12.2004 (P-2), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 9.1.2006 (P-4). The first submission is that the period of one year has elapsed between the two notifications. When the matter came up for consideration on the last date of hearing i.e.

19.10.2007, the petitioners were asked to place on record the factual position with regard to publication of notification in terms of Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, they have placed on record report of publication in the locality by munadi. It is clear that publication in the locality has been made on

10.1.2005. According to plain language of Section 4 of the Act, this date has to be taken for the purposes of reckoning one year. Accordingly, we find that the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act i.e. 9.1.2006 (P-4) is within one year. The aforementioned position is supported by various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Urban Improvement Trust, Udaipur v. Bheru Lal, (2002) 7 SCC 712; Sriniwas Ramnath Khatod v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 689; and Eugenio Misquita v. State of Goa, (1997) 8 SCC 47. The second submission made by learned counsel is that the period of 30 days has not been given by the publication of substance of notification by munadi, as munadi has been effected on 10.1.2005 and period up to 15.1.2005 has been CWP No. 16486 of 2007 3 granted. It is not disputed that the petitioners had filed objections before 15.1.205, which might be in pursuance to the publication in the Press on 23.12.2004 (Amar Ujala).

Therefore, we find no substance even in the second submission made by the learned counsel. Learned counsel has then argued that the land comprised in the same Rectangle, as detailed in para 7 of the petition, belonging to one Shri Rambir Singh, former MLA, has been exempted. The land of the petitioners is also comprised in the same Rectangle with a difference of khasra numbers. He has urged that there is discrimination and pick and chose in granting exemption. He has further placed reliance on a pending writ petition in respect of the same notifications, namely, C.W.P. No. 10686 of 2007. With regard to third issue, we issue notice of motion for To come up alongwith C.W.P. No. 10686 of 2007. Interim directions in the same terms.” Although no written statement has been filed in CWP No. 16486 of 2007 but in response to the notice of motion issued on the question of discrimination written statement on behalf of respondent nos.

1 and 3 has been filed in two other connected cases. On the similar issue raised concerning discrimination the respondents has stated in reply to para 6 that the land belonging to Ramveer Singh, former MLA has not been exempted from acquisition being khasra No. 162/17/1/2 and the same is also under acquisition as the Committee has already passed a resolution to CWP No. 16486 of 2007 4 acquire that land and the allegations made that the land belonging to former MLA Shri Ramveer Singh has been exempted is found to be factually incorrect. Even otherwise it has been held in the case of Anand Buttons v. State of Haryana AIR 2005 SC 565 that releasing of one piece of land in preference to others itself is no ground for invoking the principle of discrimination. Therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed . In view of the above, we do not find any legal infirmity in the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents for acquiring the land. The writ petitions are without any substance and the same are accordingly dismissed.

12.5.2008 A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina ) Judge