1. This judgment disposes of C.W.P. No. 1876, 1901 and 3^60 of 1993.
2. A challenge has been made in these petitions to the notification No. L.A.C. (G)-90/NTLA/175- dated February 15, 1990 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the declaration under Section 6 of the. same Act issued vide notification No LAC(G) NTLA-91/257 dated February 14, 1991.
3. A reference to the relevant facts has been made from the pleadings in C.W.P. No. 1876 of 1993 except where otherwise necessary from the pleadings in the other two cases :--
4. The petitioner says that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was not published as enjoined under Section 4(1) of the Act; that the petitioner's land was not left out of acqusition, whereas the land of other similarly situated landowners was left out; that the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, wrote to the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana that the land sought to be acquired was inspected and the Deputy Commissioner observed that it was inadequate for Revenue Complex, and that the objections.under Section 5A of the Act had been filed but the same were not disposed of before iss ling the declaration under Section 6 of the Act.
5. Written statement has been filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana, Gurgaon. It is stated therein that at the time of survey conducted by him, he observed as under :-
'At the time of survey there was a gate, a boundary wall, foundation and nothing else, Fair, adequate and reasonable compensationhas been awarded for the same by the answering authority.'
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on February 15, 1990. It was published in two daily newspapers, viz. Nav Bharat Times (Hindi) dated 21-2-1990 and The tribune (English) dated February 29, 1990. A copy of the notification was pasted on the notice board of the Halqa Patwari and the Tahsil Office and it was also published by beat of drum in the town. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5A of the Act. He appeared through his attorney Sh. Ajit Singh. He was afforded opportunity of hearing and the objections were disposed of in accordance with law. Declaration under Section 6 was published on February 14, 1991. The land measuring 9.63 acres was included in the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Whereas declaration under Section 6 was made with regard to land measuring 8.31 acres. Land measuring 1.32 acres was left out of the acquisition. During survey it was found that there was 'A' and 'B' class construction on that land.
6. In C.W.P. No. 3360 of 1993, it is pleaded in the written statement that at the time of survey, it was found that the petitioner's land was lying vacant and there was no construction.
7. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted thus:--
(i) The public purpose stated in the notification under Section 4 of the Act is vague;
(ii) The Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Surgaon, wrote Memo No. 7127 dated October 8, 1990 to the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, Chandigarh, saying that the Joint Inspection Committee under his Chairmanship had conducted survey of the Revenue Complex, Sector 5, Rewari. The Deputy Commissioner also observed that the land sought to be acquired was inadequates for the Revenue Complex and the issue of acquiring the land might be examined and discussed with the Haryana Urban Development Authority and
(iii) The Land of similarly situated landowners had been left from acquisition.
8. We will first deal with point No. (ii). The communication contained in Memo No. 7127, dated October 8, 1990, addressed by the Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon to the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, Chandigarh, read thus:--
'Subject: Acquisition of land in Section 5, Rewari. Kindly refer to your letter No. 2798 dated 7-8-1990 vide which a Joint inspection Committee under the Chairmanship of the undersigned was directed to conduct the survey of the Revenue complex in Section 5, Rewari to identify the structures within the land in question and send the report to you.
In terms of the said letter, the Committee visited Rewari on 5-10-1990 and inspected the site in question. Thereafter the issue was discussed with D. C. The proposed land is to be acquired for Revenue complex at Rewari. Revenue department can also do the acquisition of land required for Revenue complex and there does not appear to be any reason for HUDA acquiring land for Revenue department. This issue may be examined and necessary orders may be given for further action in this regard.
Deputy Commissioner also observed that this land is inadequate for Revenue complex. Moreover, sizeable pocket of land is under construction and the remaining land does not have major (for 'measure') aceuss from either the circular road or from the road going to Konsiwas. Deputy Commissioner also informed that he has recommended to the Government not to acquire the piece of land for Revenue complex as this piece of land is not adequate for the complex. It has been felt by the Committee that this issue has to be resolved before any action is taken by the HUDA. It may be noted that in case the suggestions made by the Deputy Commissioner, Rewari is accepted, this land will become a liability for HUDA.
9. Hence in the light of observation made above, it is requested that this issue may be examined afresh and necessary orders may bepassed to this office for further action.'
We directed the land Acquisition Collectorto file an affidavit with regard to the contents of the aforesaid letter. In the additional affidavit dated March 2, 1994, it is stated the land had not been acquired for the Revenue Complex, but for commercial residential and institutional area at Rewari and as such, the letter dated October 8, 1990 had no relevancy for resolving the issue raised in these writ petitions. A perusal of the cominunication dated October 8, 1990 reveals that the land was sought to be acquired for Revenue complex and the Joint Inspection Committee found that the land was insufficient for the Revenue Complex. The statement in the latter that the Haryana Urban Development Authority cannot acquire the land for the Revenue Department indicates that initially there was a proposal for acquiring the land for the Revenue Complex, but at a later stage the land was acquired on behalf of the Haryana Urban Deveopment Authority for it development and utilisation as commercial, residential, institutional area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The submission of the learned counsel that the State Government has expressed an opinion that the land is not suitable for the purpose for which it had been acquired does not flow from the communication dated October 8, 1990, referred to supra, or the notification under Section 4 of the Act under challenge.
Point No. (1) The object of the Act is to empower the Government to acquire land for. a public purpose. What is a 'public purpose' is not defined in the Act. It is obviously left to the acquiring authority to declare the purpose. The purpose in view should contemplate public good. The public purpose mentioned in the notification is for the development and utilisation of land as Commercial/Residential/Institutional area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Harayan Urban Development Authority.' The aim of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act is proper urban development and it is for this reason that the land has been acquired for development under the HUDA Act by the Haryana Urban Development Authority and it cannotbe said that the public purpose is vague or indefinte.
Point No. (iii) :-- The positive stand of respondent No. 4 is that at the time of survey, only a boundary wall, a gate some foundation were found to be in existence on the disputed land and for that appropriate compensation had been paid to the petitioners. Wherever there was 'A' or 'B' class construction, that construction was left out of the acquisition.
10. The submissions of the learned counsel are bereft of any merit.
11. For the reasons stated above, these petitions fail and are dismissed.
12. Petitions dismissed.