JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. This petition has been filed to quash the acquisition proceedings under taken by the respondents in respect of the land comprised of Khewat No. 13319 and Khasra No. 1695, measuring 2-Bighas 2-Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Gurgaon.
2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are owners of 2/3rd share and the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are owners of 1/3 rd share of the land falling in khasra No. 1695. This assertion of the petitioners finds support from the entries made in the jamabandi for the year 1976-77 of village Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, (Annexure P-l), entry dated 21.2.1911 contained in the Mutation Register (Annexure P-2), Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Annexure P-3), Khasra Girsawari dated 24.10.1985 (Annexure P-4) and Jamabandi for the year 1986-87 (Annexure P-7).
3. The petitioners have alleged that although the land belongs to them, the respondents have taken steps to disposses them by sending notices Annexures P-5 and P-9 alleging unauthorised occupation by them and from these proceedings, they have come to know that by issuing notice in the name of the Daryao Singh, the Government and the Land Acquisition Collector acquired the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners have alleged that notifications issued Under Sections 4 and 6 and the notice issued Under Section 9 as well as the award passed Under Section 11 of the 1894 Act were in the name of Daryao Singh resident of village and Post Office Gurgaon and no notice was ever given to them with a proposal to acquire the land and in this manner they have been deprived of opportunity of submitting their objections against the proposed acquisition proceedings. According to the petitioners after having acquired knowledge about the proceedings drawn by the respondents, they had made representation to the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, and then only the Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Haryana, Gurgaon, called upon them to submit the documents regarding their ownership and this by itself shows that the respondents did not know about the true owner of the land and had drawn proceedings without giving any notice to them. It has also been stated by the petitioner that they have constructed a house ever the disputed land and that house exists even as on date.
4. Notice of this petition was issued on 18.9.1992. At the same time, an order of status quo was passed by the High Court on that very date. After the counsel for the respondents had sought four adjournment, the Court issued a direction on 14.7.1993 to the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, to appear in the Court along with the record relating to Award No. 3 dated 5.11.1981. On the next date of hearing, the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 produced a copy of letter No. ADA-I-93/771 dated 19.7.1993. After hearing the parties, the Court admitted this Writ Petition on 17.11.1993 but at the same time restrained the petitioners from alienating, transferring or changing the nature of the property.
5. By the letter dated 19.7.1993, which is available at page 31 of the paper-book, the Director, Urban Estates-cum-Chief Administrator, HUDA, wrote to the Advocate General, Haryana, that land bearing No. 1695, measuring 2-Bighas 7-Biswas (Pucca) situated in village Gurgaon was acquired vide Award No. 3 dated 5.11.1981 and the award was announced in the name of Shri Darya Singh etc. It has also been written in the letter that as per Jamabandi for the year 1976-77, the land bearing Khasra No. 1695 was owned by Sarvshri Deep Chand and Balwant Singh 2/3rd share and Jaswant Singh and Partap Singh l/3rd share. He made a request to the Advocate General to make a statement in the High Court and get the writ petition dismissed as having become infructuous with the right to require the land.
6. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 4, it has been stated that the acquisition was made for the development of Sector 12-A, Gurgaon, and the award was made on 5.11.1981 and the possession was also taken over on 5.11.1981 and was handed over to the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon. It has been stated that the writ petition is highly belated. Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 have pleaded that the petitioner did not file objections Under Section 5-A and, therefore, there was no occasion to give notices to them. Regarding Section 9 notice, it has been stated that by mistake it was issued in the name of Daryao Singh in respect of the land bearing Khasra Nos. 1695 and 1698, whereas the notice should have been issued in the name of Daryao Singh etc. only in respect of Khasra No. 1698. It has also been stated that compensation in respect of the land falling in Khasra No. 1695 is lying unpaid in the name of Daryao Singh.
7. It their separate reply, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have pleaded that the possession of the land was taken on 5.11.1981 as per report (Annexure R-l) and it was handed over to the Haryana Urban Development Authority by the Land Acquisition Collector. Existence of the construction of residential house has been denied by respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
8. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents, which have been placed on record, it is evident that even as per the respondents, the land falling in Khasra No. 1695 belongs to the petitioners and their names appear in the Jamabandi for the 1976-77 and of subsequent years. Letter written by the Director, Urban Estate-cum-Chief Administrator, HUDA, on 19.7.1993 makes it clear that no notice was ever given to the petitioners for acquisition of the land in question. Names of the petitioners did not figure either in the notifications issued Under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act or in the award passed Under Section 11. In fact, the Director, Urban Estate-cum-Chief Administrator, Huda, has directly, admitted that the acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners is contrary to law. In their replies also, the respondents have not been able to show that any notice was given to the petitioners for the purpose of acquisition of their land. Rather they have admitted that notice was issued to Daryao Singh and admittedly Daryao Singh has nothing to do with the land belonging to the petitioners. It must, therefore, be held that the land belonging to the petitioners had not been acquired by taking proceedings in accordance with law and no opportunity was given to the petitioners to submit their objections to the acquisition proceedings.
9. In view of this and particularly the letter dated 19.7.1993 written by the Director, Urban Estates-cum-Chief Administrator, HUDA, we have no hesitation to quash the acquisition proceedings drawn by the respondents for acquiring the land owned by the petitioners as well as the notice (Annexure P-9) issued by the Collector-cum-Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon, Under Section 18(1) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977.
10. The writ petition is allowed in the manner, indicated above. However, it is made clear that this order of ours shall not prevent the respondents from taking fresh proceedings for acquisition of the land in dispute.