Smt. Rajeshwari Devi JaIn Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of a person governed by customary law and constitutional validity of section 14 of hindu succession act. thus there is no real conflict between the two full bench judgments. both the full bench judgments have been delivered on the assumption that joginder singhs case dealt with question of alienation whereas pritam singhs case had decided the question concerning succession. even on fact in joginder singhs case the issue was validity of alienation by consent decree by a father to his two sons, which was challenged by third son, whereas in pritam singhs case the question of nature of property in hands of sons on death of their father had arisen for purposes of assessment of estate duty. in pritam singhs case the property in the hands of the sons was held to be coparcenary property and only 1/3rd of property belonging to deceased father was considered eligible for estate duty. therefore, there was no question of alienation in pritam singhs case......groping whether their land had been acquired.3. it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners did not file objections under section 5a of the act as they were misled by the non-description of the land to be acquired in the notification under section 4 of the act and thus they should be afforded at least one opportunity to explain to the land acquisition collector whether their land should be excluded from acquisition. i find merit in this submission and accordingly direct the land acquisition collector, panchkula, office at hissar, to treat the writ petition as the objection petition under section 5a of the act and dispose of the same in accordance with law. he will permit the petitioners to file additional affidavit, if any, or lead such evidence in support of their claim for exclusion of their land from acquisition. the petitioners through their counsel are directed to appear before the land acquisition collector, hissar on december 14, 1992.4. with these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, but with no order as to costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

G.R. Majithia, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification dated December 22, 1978, issued Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), and the declaration Under Section 6 of the Act dated June 2, 1980 in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Land measuring 1.66 acres (= 136 Kanals) detailed and described as Khasra Nos. 5694/1 min. south and middle, 5696 min. south situate in Hissar, Hadbast No. 146, Tehsil and District Hissar was acquired for the development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. Site plan of the land acquired was not appended with the notification. The petitioner purchased land measuring 1000 square yards situated at Hissar-Delhi Road opposite Model Town, Hissar vide registered sale deed dated January 30, 1978 from Sarvshri Gulab Chand Jain and two others. They got the plan sanctioned from Municipal Committee, Hissar and constructed a Kothi thereon. The same has all the modern facilities and amenities. The petitioners could not file objections Under Section 5A of the Act since it was not clear whether the land underneath their Kothi had also been acquired. It is not disputed by the State that the Kothi is situated in a fully developed residential area. It is surrounded by developed colonies all around. In the absence of the site plan having been annexed with the notification Under Section 4 of the Act, it is probable that the petitioners were misled that the land underneath their Kothi had not been acquired. Notices Under Section 9 of the Act were issued to the original landowners. In response to the notice, the petitioners filed objections that they were not aware whether the land underneath their Kothi had also been acquired. It appears that when the objections were filed Under Section 9 of the Act, the petitioners were groping whether their land had been acquired.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners did not file objections Under Section 5A of the Act as they were misled by the non-description of the land to be acquired in the notification Under Section 4 of the Act and thus they should be afforded at least one opportunity to explain to the Land Acquisition Collector whether their land should be excluded from acquisition. I find merit in this submission and accordingly direct the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula, Office at Hissar, to treat the writ petition as the objection petition Under Section 5A of the Act and dispose of the same in accordance with law. He will permit the petitioners to file additional affidavit, if any, or lead such evidence in support of their claim for exclusion of their land from acquisition. The petitioners through their counsel are directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector, Hissar on December 14, 1992.

4. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, but with no order as to costs.