Bhagwan Dass vs State of Haryana

N.C. Jain, J. (Oral)

This writ petition was preferred by all the three petitioners but on August 22, 1991 the writ petition of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed. The petitioners challenged the legality and validity of the notifications Annexure P. 1 dated 8.3.1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') and Annexure P. 3 dated 7.3.1990 issued under Section 6 of the Act.

In Khasra No. 691 the petitioner has got constructed a residential house after his retirement from the Air Force in the year 1979. The said house was constructed before the notification under Section 4, Annexure P.1, of the Act was issued. The petitioner filed an ObjectionPetition under Section 5A of the Act specifying therein that he had spent his entire money at the time of his retirement on the construction of temple and the Samadhi of his mother besides constructing the same.

The stand of the respondents in the return is that the land in dispute was completely vacant at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, According to the respondents, a survey was conducted and the land of the petitioner was found completely vacant. It is further the stand of the State that the possession of the land was taken over by the respondents.

A replication was filed by the petitioner in which the averments on facts stated in the written statement were denied and it was stated in so many words that the petitioner has his residential house in Khasra No. 691 constructed.

During the course of hearing, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P. was filed and this Court appointed a Local Commissioner vide order dated 3.8.1992. The Local Commissioner has submitted his report. It has been found by the Local Commissioner that the total area is surrounded by pucca boundary wall with iron gate. Six pucca rooms were in existence besides a Samadhi and bath room and latrine. The bath room and latrine were without roof. One room was found constructed near the main gate and the construction was of ''B'' class quality. One handpump was found installed in the premises. No electric connection was found on the spot. The petitioner submitted before the Local Commissioner that the electric meter had been stolen recently and application in this respect was made to the Police. Some writing was found in one room. The Local Commissioner also gave his own opinion with regard to the age of construction. He stated that some of the rooms had been constructed about 7/8 years ago, whereas 2/3 rooms appeared to have been constructed about 5/6 years ago. The Local Commissioner has also found in the report that adjacent to site of the petitioner a house of an Advocate, namely, Vijay Kumar, was there which according to the people who had gathered, it was released from acquisition.

After the submission of the report, I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

In the light of the contents of the report of the Local Commissioner, it cannot be successfully maintained by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner''s land was found vacant at the time of the survey or at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act because the said notification was issued in 1989. It is the categorical finding of the Local Commissioner that some of the rooms were constructed 7/8 years back which takes us back to the year 1984. In view thereof, this Court can reasonably conclude that the hearing granted to the petitioner under Section 5A of the Act was no hearing in the eye of law and there were some defects in the survey wherein it was found that the land of the petitioner was vacant. In view thereof, there is no alternative left with this Court but to allow this petition and direct the authorities to take final decision after hearing the objection of the petitioner under Section 5A of the Act. This Court has got no doubt that, if the petitioner is entitled to the relief by way of release of his constructed portion on merits, the State would grant necessary relief particularly when it has been found even by the Local Commissioner that house of Shri Vijay Kumar, Advocate, has been released from the acquisition. The petitioner would be associated in all the proceedings to be taken by the authorities. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.