“4. That the Land Bearing Khasra No. 1292/511 Was Vs. State of Haryana and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1066659
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnAug-26-2013
Appellant“4. That the Land Bearing Khasra No. 1292/511 Was
RespondentState of Haryana and ors.
Excerpt:
in the high court for the states of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. cwp no.8635 of 1991. [o&m]. date of decision:26th august, 2013. malkhan singh petitioner through mr. asim aggarwal, advocate versus state of haryana & ors. respondents through mr. s.s.patter, sr. dag, haryana. coram:hon'ble mr. justice surya kant hon'ble mr. justice inderjit singh 1 whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.2. to be referred to the reporters or not?.3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. surya kant, j.[oral]. the petitioners impugn the notifications dated 16.12.1988 and 14.12.1989 issued under sections 4 and 6 of the land acquisition act, 1894 for the acquisition of his land comprising khasra no.1292/511/2 and 1293/511 situated within the revenue estate of village khandsa, tehsil & district gurgaon. [2].. the above stated land was acquired for the public purpose of industrial sector-37 at gurgaon. [3].. it is not in dispute that though a bunch of writ petitions challenging the same acquisition were dismissed by this court vide order dated 17.03.2011 passed in cwp no.3611 of 1990 [roopwati & ors. vs. the state of haryana & anr.]. and other connected cases, nonetheless his learned counsel submits that the land comprising above mentioned khasra numbers was not included in the notification issued under section 4 of the act. according to him, the vague specification of the land of khasra nos.“50. to gupta dinesh 2013.09.04 11:12 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document hihg court chandigarh 660.....”.does not amount to a conscious decision of the competent authority to acquire his land as well. [4].. in order to controvert the petitioner's plea, land acquisition collector has filed an affidavit dated 01.04.2013, paragraphs 4 to 9 whereof read as under:-“4. that the land bearing khasra no.1292/511 was notified vide notification under section 4 dated 16.12.1988 for development and utilization of the industrial sector 37 at gurgaon as per the development plan supplied by the district town planner, gurgaon.5. that the petitioner has filed the objections under section 5-a of the act against the notification under section 4 dated 16.12.1988. after hearing the objection and site visit of the land bearing khasra no.1292/511, the constructed area [0-9-5]. has been released by the government.6. that the declaration under section 6 of the land bearing khasra no.1292/511 min was declared on 14.12.1989 for development and utilization of industrial sector 37 at gurgaon as per the development plan supplied by the district town planner, gurgaon.7. that the notice under section 9 of the land bearing khasra no.1292/511/2[1-3-8]., 1293/511[1-9-0]. was issued to the petitioner for hearing the claims regarding the land in dispute.8. that the award of the land bearing khasra no.1292/511/2[1-3-8]., 1293/511[1-9-0]. was announced on 12.12.1991 as per the provision of the act.9. that the consolidation proceeding has not been carried out in the village khandsa. it is also submitted that the actual khasra number is 511. the number 1292 is hadud number of the village khandsa. it is always last number of the village. after preparation of tatima in the land in gupta dinesh 2013.09.04 11:12 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document hihg court chandigarh dispute the hadud number 1292 was entered in the revenue record”.. [5].. it may thus be seen that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and he was fully alive to the fact that his land was under acquisition that he submitted his objections under section 5-a of the act and after considering those objections and site inspection, that the constructed portion of his property [9 biswas-5 biswansis]. has been released from acquisition. [6].. for the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in the writ petition so far as it challenges the acquisition of the petitioner's remaining land. dismissed. [7].. dasti. ( surya kant ) judge august 26, 2013. ( inderjit singh ) dinesh judge gupta dinesh 2013.09.04 11:12 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document hihg court chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.8635 of 1991. [O&M]. Date of Decision:26th August, 2013. Malkhan Singh Petitioner through Mr. Asim Aggarwal, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. S.S.Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. SURYA KANT, J.[ORAL]. The petitioners impugn the notifications dated 16.12.1988 and 14.12.1989 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the acquisition of his land comprising Khasra No.1292/511/2 and 1293/511 situated within the revenue estate of village Khandsa, Tehsil & District Gurgaon. [2].. The above stated land was acquired for the public purpose of Industrial Sector-37 at Gurgaon. [3].. It is not in dispute that though a bunch of writ petitions challenging the same acquisition were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2011 passed in CWP No.3611 of 1990 [Roopwati & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana & Anr.]. and other connected cases, nonetheless his learned counsel submits that the land comprising above mentioned Khasra numbers was not included in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. According to him, the vague specification of the land of Khasra Nos.

“50. to Gupta Dinesh 2013.09.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Hihg Court Chandigarh 660.....”

.does not amount to a conscious decision of the competent authority to acquire his land as well. [4].. In order to controvert the petitioner's plea, Land Acquisition Collector has filed an affidavit dated 01.04.2013, paragraphs 4 to 9 whereof read as under:-

“4. That the land bearing Khasra No.1292/511 was notified vide notification under Section 4 dated 16.12.1988 for development and utilization of the industrial Sector 37 at Gurgaon as per the development plan supplied by the District Town Planner, Gurgaon.

5. That the petitioner has filed the objections under Section 5-A of the Act against the notification under Section 4 dated 16.12.1988. After hearing the objection and site visit of the land bearing Khasra No.1292/511, the constructed area [0-9-5]. has been released by the Government.

6. That the declaration under Section 6 of the land bearing Khasra No.1292/511 min was declared on 14.12.1989 for development and utilization of industrial sector 37 at Gurgaon as per the development plan supplied by the District Town Planner, Gurgaon.

7. That the notice under Section 9 of the land bearing Khasra No.1292/511/2[1-3-8]., 1293/511[1-9-0]. was issued to the petitioner for hearing the claims regarding the land in dispute.

8. That the award of the land bearing Khasra No.1292/511/2[1-3-8]., 1293/511[1-9-0]. was announced on 12.12.1991 as per the provision of the Act.

9. That the consolidation proceeding has not been carried out in the village Khandsa. It is also submitted that the actual khasra Number is 511. The number 1292 is hadud number of the village Khandsa. It is always last number of the village. After preparation of Tatima in the land in Gupta Dinesh 2013.09.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Hihg Court Chandigarh dispute the hadud number 1292 was entered in the revenue record”.. [5].. It may thus be seen that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and he was fully alive to the fact that his land was under acquisition that he submitted his objections under Section 5-A of the Act and after considering those objections and site inspection, that the constructed portion of his property [9 Biswas-5 Biswansis]. has been released from acquisition. [6].. For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in the writ petition so far as it challenges the acquisition of the petitioner's remaining land. Dismissed. [7].. Dasti. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE August 26, 2013. ( INDERJIT SINGH ) dinesh JUDGE Gupta Dinesh 2013.09.04 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Hihg Court Chandigarh