Land Acquisition Act 1894- Service of Notice- Opportunity of Hearing
Anonymous User at 7:29 p.m. on 25 May 12
For making my residential house, while I was serving in the Armed Forces of the Union of India, I had purchased in 1989,a plot of 500 square yards in Village Nangal Sodian, Tehsil Kalka, then in District Ambala (later from 15 September 1995 Distt Panchkula) Haryana,India. The Sale deed was duly registered with the sub registrar Kalka wherein my full permanent address was available.
I have had no one staying in the aforesaid village or nearby and I was looking forward to my retirement in 2010 so that I would construct my house on my plot.
After my retirement in October 2010, I visited my plot and found that a number of houses had come up,constructed there in the Colony and persons were staying in these houses. Just adjacent next to the left of my plot a house had come up. There were houses all over to the left, right, front and at the back of my plot separated by a few yards.
I was told by a neighbour that my plot number 3 had been acquired by the State of Haryana for HUDA for Public Purpose of developing the area for residential sectors of HUDA in 2008 and an award was passed on 24 September 2010 under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. And others’ Plots viz Numbers 2,13,15,16,17,19,27,33,37,38,42,56, 73,74, and also other plots just diagonally opposite to my plot have been spared/released from acquisition.
That the houses that had been constructed prior to the Notification were spared. It was a shock. The Land Acquisition Act does not lay down that the Constructed houses are to be spared. It is probably discretion of the Hon'ble Court.
How could I have constructed a house while serving in the Armed Forces of the Union of India and in the Central Government? Should I have deserted the Defence Service or taken premature retirement so that I could also have been there in the village and have constructed a house on my plot? Had I retired four years earlier I could have also constructed the house as I have no other place to stay- while in service one gets government accommodation.
I studied the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and learnt that the basic requirement of serving a Notice under Section 9(4) had not been complied with. The RTI Act/ information has laid bare what the Acquisition authorities may like to conceal or fabricate. The Section 9(4) reads:
“ In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place or business and [registered under sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898)].”
Since I never came to know about the Notification under Section 4 of LA Act being away from Haryana on exigencies of Service and had none in Haryana who could inform me, nor the two dailies circulating the Locality could reach me as there was none in the mainstream Newspapers I was not able to file the objections under Section 5 A of the Act.
Similarly I never came to know of the declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act.
I have been representing to one and all in the State of Haryana but no response except for the diary number of the office of the Chief Secretary of the State. The Deputy Commissioner of Panchkula, a conscientious IAS officer has been writing to the Land Acquisition Officer to give the Report on my representations and inform her office about the status and inform the same to me and to the office of the Chief Minister but the LAO seems impervious.
From the Web search I found that the Notification under Section 4 issued on 26 September 2007, and the declaration dated 25 September 2008 and the Award dated 24 September 2010 had been quashed by the High Court of Punjab and Harayana qua the Land of the Petitioner in CWP No. 15150 of 2010 decided on 05.05.2011 in respect of Plot Number 2 which falls in the same khewat / khatauni, Khasra and to the same extent situated at village Naggal Sodhian, tehsil Kalka,district Panchkula. The Hon'ble High Court had observed in the Judgment that:-
"...Such like hostile ground to discriminate amongst the land owners has adversely been commented upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Ram’s case (supra). Case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment in that case...In view of facts mentioned above, we allow this writ petition..."
There are many other states in India where the land acquisition officers are instructed to ascertain as to who are all the parties interested in the land to be acquired before initiating the acquisition proceedings.
In this connection the States have issued circulars drawing attention of all the officers to Sub Section (1) of Section 4 and Sub Section (3) of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 [as amended by the Land Acquisition (Karnataka Extension and Amendment) Act, 1961 which clearly lay down that the copies of the Notification under Section 4(1) should be served on the owner, or where the owner is not the occupier, on the occupier of the land and also clearly define as to who are all the persons interested.
'An instance has come to the notice of Government wherein the land which was acquiredwithout serving notice on all the concerned persons interested in the land notifiedunder Sub Section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, even when the documents based on which such persons claim title over the land in question wereregistered in the Sub-Registrar's Office and the intimation of the transaction was sent bythe Sub-Registrar to the Tahsildar concerned.'
'The acquisition was consequently challenged in the court successfully and both the preliminary and final Notifications were struck down on account of the above lapse.'
I have exhausted all channels available to me. I have been forced to stay in a rented house after my retirement as my plan to construct a house at my only piece of Land has gone hay-wire. I read in the Newspapers dated 20.05.2012 and later that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also recently observed about the acquisition in the area where my plot is situated and I found from the following site
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/sc%2021786-2178810p.txt the observation of the Hon'ble Court.
"...We are prima facie of the view that the entire
acquisition proceeding deserve to be quashed.However,
before passing any order in that regard, we deem it
proper to order impleadment of all the persons, in whose favour land was released at different stages as parties to the special leave petitions..."
Please advise and give case laws with ratio of Judgement covering the case.
For Wing Commander.
Anonymous User at 1:39 p.m. on 05 Sept. 12
Anonymous User at 1:39 p.m. on 05 Sept. 12