IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.236 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.8.2009
Krishan Kumar.
-----Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana & others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
-----
ORDER:
1. The appellant is aggrieved by judgment of the learned
Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition against acquisition
proceedings in pursuance of notifications dated July 19, 1985 and
July 14, 1986 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). The land was
acquired for construction of a warehouse.
2. Grievance of the appellant was that the acquisition
proceedings were illegal for want of proper publication, arbitrary
rejection of objections under Section 5A of the Act and
discrimination in not acquiring the land on both sides of the
existing warehouse which was more suited.
LPA No.236 of 2007 2
3. The stand of the appellant was contested by filing a
written statement, to the effect that due publication was made in
the newspapers and official gazette as well as through munadi
and the appellant filed objections, which were duly considered.
The land of the appellant was more suitable for a compact
warehouse.
4. Learned Single Judge held that the plea of want of
publication could not be entertained, as the appellant filed
objections, which were duly considered. In any case, the
publication had been duly made, as evidenced by particulars of
locality being duly entered in the Roznamcha. As regards
suitability of the land of the appellant for acquisition, it was
observed that acquiring authority had the competence to select
the land which was considered most suitable, unless the decision
was not unfair or arbitrary.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant repeated the
submissions which were made before the learned Single Judge.
He relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The
Collector (Distt.Magistrate), Allahabad and another v. Raja
Ram Jaiswal AIR 1985 SC 1622 in support of his submission
that publication was mandatory. He also relies upon judgments of
this Court Ghansham Dass Goyal and others v. The State of
Haryana and another 1982 PLJ 146 and Jati v. The State of
Haryana and another 1986 PLJ 23 in support of his submission
LPA No.236 of 2007 3
that publication should be in the locality so that the affected
parties could acquire knowledge about the acquisition.
7. Learned counsel for the State supported the findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge.
8. We are unable to accept the submissions made on
behalf of the appellant. No doubt, the publication is mandatory,
as laid down in the judgment relied upon, but in the present case,
there is a finding of fact that publication was duly made.
Moreover, the appellant filed objections, which shows that he
acquired information about the acquisition proceedings. As
regards suitability of the land of the appellant, two views may be
possible, as to which land may be better suited. In absence of
any malafides, it is not possible to hold that selection of land of
the appellant for acquisition was not permissible.
9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
10. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
August 13, 2009 ( DAYA
CHAUDHARY )
ashwani JUDGE