9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. Publication of the Notification in the locality. 3. Impact of subsequent Notifications on earlier Notifications. 4. Rights of subsequent purchasers to challenge the acquisition. 5. Alleged discriminatory release of land by the State. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act The court addressed whether the preliminary Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 24th June 1980, the date it purported to have been published. The petitioners argued that the Notification was ante-dated and reached the Printing Press much later. The court, however, found no reliable evidence to support this claim and upheld the presumption of regularity in official acts. The court concluded that the Notification was indeed published on 24th June 1980, as indicated in the official gazette, and dismissed the petitioners' contention. Issue 2: Publication of the Notification in the locality The petitioners argued that there was no publication of the Notification in the locality, as required by Section 4 of the Act. They supported their claim with affidavits from local residents and the statement of a Patwari. The court, however, noted that 29 landowners had filed objections in response to the Notification, which indicated that the Notification had been duly published in the locality. The court found the official record, which included an entry in the Roznamcha Wakiati, more credible than the affidavits and the incomplete statement of the Patwari. The court concluded that the mandatory requirement of local publication was met. Issue 3: Impact of subsequent Notifications on earlier Notifications The petitioners argued that subsequent Notifications under Section 4 of the Act, issued in 1990 and 1995, superseded the earlier Notifications from 1980. The court, however, distinguished the facts of this case from those in Raghunath v. State of Maharashtra, where a subsequent Notification was issued to rectify procedural defects in the earlier one. The court held that the subsequent Notifications were issued to expedite the acquisition process for land not under legal challenge and did not supersede the earlier valid Notifications. Thus, the court concluded that the earlier Notifications remained valid. Issue 4: Rights of subsequent purchasers to challenge the acquisition The court addressed whether subsequent purchasers, who bought the land after the issuance of the Notification under Section 4, had the right to challenge the acquisition. The court cited precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts, which held that subsequent purchasers could not challenge the acquisition but were only entitled to compensation. The court found that the original landowners had sold their interests, and the subsequent purchasers were pursuing the litigation. Therefore, the court concluded that the subsequent purchasers were not entitled to question the validity of the Notifications. Issue 5: Alleged discriminatory release of land by the State The petitioners argued that the State had arbitrarily released land for some owners while retaining theirs, constituting discriminatory treatment. The court examined the reasons provided by the State for releasing certain lands, which included facilitating development plans and accommodating specific needs like road construction. The court found that the petitioners' land was designated for economically weaker sections, which justified its retention. The court concluded that there was no invidious discrimination by the State and dismissed the claim of arbitrary treatment. Conclusion The court dismissed Civil Writ Petition No. 3855 of 1982 and Civil Writ Petition No. 3673 of 1983, finding that the Notifications under Section 4 and subsequent actions by the State were valid and lawful. The court also disposed of Civil Writ Petition No. 3065 of 2008, directing the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) to take necessary steps to address the petitioners' grievances regarding the sewerage system, as the stay orders impeding the development had been lifted.
|
