Ujjaval Singh vs State of Haryana

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioner impugns the notifications dated 25.07.2013 and 26.07.2013 issued under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Vide the above stated notifications, the petitioner''s land measuring 9 marlas comprising Khasra No. 34[23/2/2] situated within the revenue estate of village Mustafabad, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, for the construction of an approach road leading to the site/land owned by the respondent - Market Committee, has been acquired.

It appears from the written statement filed by the respondents that the subject site is to be developed as an office of the Market Committee; covered sheds and for other amenities for the visiting farmers.

The only question that arises for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the respondents were justified in invoking urgency clause u/s 17 of the Act for acquiring the petitioner''s land?

There is no gain saying that the only remedy available to an affected landowner under the 1894 Act [since repealed] was to submit objections u/s 5A of the Act. In the event of invoking urgency clause u/s 17, the said opportunity to submit objections u/s 5A is also denied and possession of the land can be taken even without passing the award. Did there exist such an emergency for the respondents in the instant case?

It is not in dispute that the site for which the approach road is to be constructed, was acquired in the year 1987 along with some adjoining land. The acquisition qua the adjoining land was quashed by this Court and that decision was upheld by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The main site thus has been lying un-utilised since the year 1987. It is not denied that no construction was started at the site and even as on date it is lying as an open vacant plot. In a situation where the proposed building is yet to be constructed, we see no justification for invoking urgency clause u/s 17 to acquire the land for the proposed approach road to such building and deny him the bare opportunity to file objections u/s 5A.

Suffice to observe that even if the ''public purpose'' is genuine and bona-fide nothing precludes the respondents to acquire the land by following the regular procedure as contemplated under the new Act, known as the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013.

For the reasons afore-mentioned, we allow this writ petition and set aside the impugned notifications, however, with liberty to the respondents that if the subject land is needed for the notified public purpose, they may proceed to acquire the same in accordance with law. In such an event, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take all his pleas on merits.

Disposed of. Dasti.