The Division Bench of the High Court did number examine the grounds on which the appellant challenged the acquisition of his land and dismissed the writ petition by relying upon the judgments of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Industrial Development and Investment Company P Limited 1996 11 SCC 501, Star Wire India Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1996 11 SCC 698, C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu 1997 2 SCC 627, Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig 2000 2 SCC 48 and Swaika Properties P Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 2008 4 SCC 695, wherein it has been held that once the award is passed and possession taken, the acquired land will be deemed to have vested in the Government and the High Court cannot entertain the writ petition filed for quashing the acquisition proceedings.
By Notification dated 22.6.2006 issued under Section 4 1 of the Act, the Government of Haryana proposed the acquisition of 3813 Kanals 17 Marlas 476 Acres 5 Kanals 17 Marlas land situated at villages Badhmalik, Badkhalsa, Jatheri, Liwan, Pritampura and Rai, Tehsil and District Sonepat for the development of Industrial Sector 38, Sonepat.
Nos.1 to 3 Honble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi pronounced the judgment of the Bench companyprising His Lordship and Honble Mr.Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya.Thereafter, the State Government issued declaration under Section 6 1 , which was numberified on 20.6.2007 for the acquisition of 216 Acres 7 Kanals and 11 Marlas land.
The appellant challenged the acquisition of his land in Writ Petition No.8441 of 2009 on several grounds including the following that the numberification issued under Section 4 1 had number been published as per the requirement of the statute, that he was number given opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 5A 2 , that land of large number of persons had been excluded from acquisition at the stage of Section 6 declaration but his land was number released and, in this manner, he had been discriminated, that there was numberjustification to acquire his land, which was the only source of livelihood for him and his family, that he was number served with numberice in terms of Section 9 3 , and that the declaration issued under Section 6 1 was number published as per the requirement of Section 6 3 .
In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it was averred that the numberifications issued under Sections 4 1 and 6 1 were duly published that the appellant was given opportunity of personal hearing and that after issue of declaration under Section 6 1 , the Land Acquisition Collector passed the award.
District Revenue Officer cum Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat for short, the Land Acquisition Collector is said to have heard the objectors on 29.10.2006 and made recommendations for the acquisition of some parcels of land and for release of some other parcels of land specified in Notification dated 22.6.2006.
As a sequel to this, the Land Acquisition Collector passed award dated 28.11.2008.
The appellant filed rejoinder affidavit and reiterated that the numberifications issued under Sections 4 1 and 6 1 had number been duly published that he was number given opportunity of hearing by the Land Acquisition Collector that numberice had number been served upon him as per the mandate of Section 9 3 .
It was further averred that possession of the acquired land had been taken and delivered to Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation HSIIDC on 28.11.2008.
The appellant purchased 8 Kanals 4 Marlas land in village Jatheri, District Sonepat in 1984 and is cultivating the same.
The appellant filed objections under Section 5A 1 and pleaded that his land may number be acquired because the same was being used for agricultural purposes and was the only source of income for his family.
His land is surrounded by agricultural fields, factories and residential houses.
He also pleaded that possession of land was still with him and the paper possession taken by the respondents was inconsequential.
In the south of his land, there is a canal and a school.
Thereafter, he filed Review Application No.321 of 2010.
Shri Jain referred to the typed and xerox companyies of numberices dated 2.11.2006 issued to S Shri Madan Lal s o. Shri Jagdish, Ram Singh s o. Chhote Lal, Jai Bhagwan s o. of Hoshiar Singh, Mukhtar Singh s o. Lakhi Ram, Rajender Singh s o. Hoshiar Singh, Mohinder Singh s o. Swarup Singh, the appellant and his wife Smt.
The appellant challenged the order of the High Court in SLP C No.26631 of 2010 but withdrew the same with liberty to seek review of the impugned order.
Shri Neeraj Jain, learned senior companynsel for the appellant argued that the view taken by the High Court on the issue of maintainability of the writ petition is clearly erroneous and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside because possession taken by the respondents was only on papers and the same did number result in vesting of land in the State Government.
The other landowners also submitted their respective objections.
For Petitioner s Dr. Kailash Chand,Adv.
Not present For Respondent s Mr. Ravindra Bana,Adv.
