Zile Singh and Others vs The State of Haryana and Others

Madan Mohan Punchhi, J.—To begin with, there were 39 Petitioners. A considerable number of them withdrew from the contest during the pendency of the petition. The remaining ones remained aggrieved against the two notifications under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the State of Haryana, for the purpose of the Haryana Agricultural University, acquired some land of the Petitioners for establishment of a research station. The primary point raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that when the notification u/s 4 was issued on 3rd April, 1981 and was followed by a declaration u/s 6 of the Act on 7th April, 1981 employing the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, there occurred lot of discrepancies not only in the description of the field numbers but also in their areas. Even the total land sought to be acquired had wrongly been calculated, the details whereof, without burdening the judgment, can be had from paragraph 4 of the petition. The discrepancies pointed out by the Petitioners have not been denied by the State. These have rather been described as accidental errors which were even corrected by a corrigendum issued by the Government in the Official Gazette on 10th September, 1982. The State otherwise clarified the errors in paragraph 4 of its return and details thereof need not burden the judgment.

The point to be seen is whether, on such errors, should the impugned notification be quashed at all and, if so, wholly or partially. In order to appreciate the point, it has to be noticed that the Land Acquisition Collector on 25th May, 1982 had announced the award vesting the land in the State and some of the landowners, a list whereof was supplied as Annexure R-1, had even received compensation. It is also noticeable that the writ-Petitioners, of course, approached this Court in June, 1982 and pointed out the discrepancies in the two notifications while obtaining stay of dispossession by the Motion Bench on 21st June, 1982. Obviously, they approached this Court after the passing of the land acquisition award. Conceivably, it can be assumed that all the arduous processes towards framing of the award had been undertaken and, in particular, that of Section 9 of the Act, inviting claim-petitions from persons interested, not only with regard to their claims to compensation but also with regard to their respective interests in the land. Undoubtedly, these were based on notifications under Sections 4 and 6, and any discrepancy with regard to the land actually sought to be acquired was in all probability resolved by all concerned with the aid of the plans which were specifically notified to be available in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Kaithal, District Kurukshetra. The entire process of acquisition of land has been undergone. It was too late in the day for the Petitioners to have come up nearly a month after the passing of the award to challenge the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act merely on suggested, though admitted, discrepancies. I am thus of the considered view that the Petitioners, by their neglect and conduct, are not entitled to any relief in these proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Not a word has been suggested that any land of the Petitioners has been taken away without there being paid compensation. It has to be borne in mind that acquisitions of the kind are made to fulfil public purposes and the time clock cannot be allowed to run back merely because, under the process, some error has been committed, unless a case of grave injustice has been made. There is nothing of the sort in the instant case. Governmental action is carried out by human beings and to err is human. The relief of this Court flows only when the error is glaring and is a case of manifest injustice; not otherwise.

At the fag-end, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that urgency provisions could not be invoked u/s 17 of the Act. What has been said with regard to notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in the preceding paragraph is equally applicable to the argument in relation to Section 17 of the Act. The Petitioners did not choose to approach this Court before the finalization of the acquisition, bemoaning the acquisition proceedings to be entirely contrary to the spirit of Section 17 of the Act.

No other point has been urged.

For the foreging reasons, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.