http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAIPAL SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)321

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      Notification under  Section 4(1)  of  Land  Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ’Act) was published on January 23, 1990 acquiring  a large  extent of the land for urbanization and commercial  purpose in  Sectors No.4A  and 6 of Daruhera and Malpura  Village in  District  Rewari.  The  respondents challenged the  validity of  the notification  in  the  High Court on  two grounds.  Firstly, that  there was a policy of the Government  to exclude  from acquisition  the  lands  on which buildings  have been  constructed  and  secondly,  the respondents had  constructed shops before notification under Section 4(1)  was published  and, therefore,  their land  is liable to  be excluded from the notification. The High Court in the  impugned order  made in  Writ Petition No 6804/91 on February 11,  1992 recorded  a finding  that the respondents had  constructed  the  shops  prior  to  the  issue  of  the notification. There  was  general  policy  to  exclude  from acquisition the  built-in areas. Therefore, it was held that they  are  liable  to  be  excluded.  The  notification  was quashed.      We have repeatedly held in several judgments that there is no  general policy  as such  that all  the lands on which construction has  come to be made are required to be deleted from the  acquisition. But  it was  admitted across  the Bar that a  decision was taken not to acquire the A.B.C.D. land. The respondents  placed on  record the  proceedings  of  the Director, Department  of Urban Estate, Haryana in the letter dated February  12, 1992  wherein it  was  stated  that  the Government had  decided to  release the  land to the west of line marked  A.B.C.D. Ok  the Shajra  Plan sent  to the Land Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, direction was given to the Land Acquisition  Officer to  take action  to delete such of those lands within that area and submit a detailed report in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

that behalf.      When we  enquired from  the counsel for the respondents to point  out after  locating the  lands  whether  they  are situated within the A.B.C.D. line marked on the Shajra Bhan, the learned  counsel with  difficulty sought to place before us the  identification and  localisation of the land. But on the basis  of scant  material on  record, we  think that  it would be  hazardous for  us to  conclude whether  or not the lands are  existing within  the  aforesaid  demarked  Shajra Plan. Appropriate  course  would  be  that  the  respondents should  make   an  application   before  the   Secretary  to Government, Haryana,  Urban Estate Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat. Chandigarh  within a period of weeks from today giving the  details of  the location,  whereat the lands are factually existing. The Secretary would have an enquiry made through  either   the  Urban   Estates  Department  or  Land Acquisition Officer,  as the case may be, or any appropriate authority, to  localise and  identify the  existence of  the lands in question belonging to the respondents. If the lands in fact are situated within the area to the west of A.B.C.D. line of  Shajra Plan,  as mentioned  in the  said letter, it would be  obvious that  in the  light of the decision of the Government, the  lands are  required  to  be  released  from acquisition.      In case the Secretary found that the lands are situated outside the  A.B.C.D. line  of Shajra  Plan, an  enquiry has necessarily got to be made as to when these 14 shops came to be  constructed  by  the  respondents.  If  the  shops  were constructed  prior   to  the  publication  of  the  impugned notification under  Section 4(1),  necessarily  compensation has to  be determined  in accordance  with the provisions of subsection (1)  of Section 23. In case the construction came to be  made  after  the  notification  under  Section  4(1), necessarily they cannot claim any compensation.      The first  appellant is  directed  to  dispose  of  the matter  within  a  period  of  two  months  thereafter.  The respondents are at liberty to place all the documents before the first appellant for consideration.      The appeal  is accordingly  disposed of  with the above modification and  direction out in the circumstances without costs