Case: Hukam Chand &amp; Others Vs. State of Haryana &amp; Others

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being noticed from the record of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 20303 of 2011.4.ner in possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 89, Khata No. 111, Rectangle No. 16, Killa No. 14/2situated in village Fazilwas, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. He constructed thereon a building consisting of 6 rooms with an open verandah, shed and courtyard. After obtaining a licence from the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, the appellant started a flour mill under the name and style M/s. Dinesh Flour Mill.5. By notification dated 14.12.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Government of Haryana proposed the acquisition of land situated in seven villages, including Fazilwas, for setting up Choudhary Devi Lal Industrial Model Township. The appellant filed objections under Section 5A(1) of the Act and pleaded that his land may not be acquired because he had raised the construction, and was running a flour mill since 2005. After considering the report of the Land Acquisition Collector, the State Government issued declaration under Section 6(1), which was published vide notification dated 18.1.2008.6. The appellant challenged the acquisition of his land in CWP No. 7424/2008. Likewise, other landowners filed writ petitions questioning the notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act. All the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court as infructuous because a statement was made on behalf of the State Government that the declaration under Section 6(1) was issued beyond the time prescribed under that section and fresh notification had been issued under Section 4(1) on 25.4.2008.7. Since the appellants land was included in notification dated 25.4.2008, he filed detailed objections dated 9.6.2008, paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 of which are extractedThat the Objector/petitioner have got constructed with A class RCC Well developed building consisting 6 rooms alongwith open verandah, shed, court yard and further the objector/petitioner is running a flour mill in the shape of small scale unit after obtaining all the mandatory licence etc. from the concerned government department and further the electricity connection was taken by the petitioner for the above purpose. The petitioner is running the above flour mill in the name of M/s. Dinesh Kumar Flour mill and the said project is more than one crore rupees. It is submitted that the petitioner is running the above said flour mill before issuance of the notification under section 4 of the land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as Act). The above atta chakki is being run by the petitioner/objector from 2005. For the above purpose the objector/petitioner had also taken loan from the Gurgaon Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gurgaon in the year 2005 for the running of his above factory etc. It is submitted that the objector/petitioner is running a flour mill by the name and style of Dinesh Kumar Flour mill in the above land. A copy of the electricity bills before issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act, of the above premises are annexed herewith asThat although the objector/petitioner has raised the factories and other constructions, on the land in question much prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, and as per policy of the Government that built up area existing at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 shall be left out from the acquisition. The petitioner/objector had constructed their factories and other constructed their factories and other constructions in the land in question before issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is having the telephone and electricity connection in the factories on the land in question.6. That according to the Govt. Policy as reproduced inwhich is a copy of CWP No. 16396 of 2007 and the same was decided on 17.12.2007, the petitioners are entitled to release of their constructed portion as the same is prior to the issuance of Notification under section 4 of the Act and there is objection by pleading that their construction is existing in the land in question. In a similar controversy earlier raised in CWP No. 16396 of 2007 this Honble Court was pleased to dispose of the writ with a direction to the petitioner to make representation in view of the said policy and the respondents were directed to consider the representation in terms of said policy.7. That the land was acquired for the purpose of setting up a Chaudhary Devi Industrial Model Township. It is submitted that there is already a factory which is being run by the petitioners in the land in dispute and the petitioner is using the land for the industrial purpose also. It is settled law if the person is using the land in question for the same purpose then the same should not be acquired.9. That the Notification regarding acquiring of above land has been issued by the State of Haryana illegally and without verifying actual state of affairs and no notice has ever been served upon the objector/petitioner till today and no legality has been complied by the respondent as enumerated in the Act.10. That the State of Haryana has adopted pick and choose policy because of the land of the some other influential persons has been released and not taken in Section 4 of the Notification. There is a discrimination by the State of Haryana."

Court's reasoning:
19. In Shyam Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar 1993(3) R.R.R. 417 : (1993) 4 SCC 255 , this Court reiterated that the provisions contained in Section 5A are mandatory and compliance thereof is sine qua non before any person can be deprived of his land. Some of the observations made in that case are extractedThe decision of the Collector is supposedly final unless the appropriate Government chooses to interfere therein and cause affectation, suo motu or on the application of any person interested in the land. These requirements obviously lead to the positive conclusion that the proceeding before the Collector is a blend of public and individual enquiry. The person interested, or known to be interested, in the land is to be served personally of the notification, giving him the opportunity of objecting to the acquisition and awakening him to such right. That the objection is to be in writing, is indicative of the fact that the enquiry into the objection is to focus his individual cause as well as public cause. That at the time of the enquiry, for which prior notice shall be essential, the objector has the right to appear in person or through pleader and substantiate his objection by evidence and argument.In Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana 2012(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 698 : 2012(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 287 : (2012) 1 SCC 792 , the Court noticed the above noted two judgments and also the judgments in Union of India v. Mukesh Hans 2004(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 315 : (2004) 8 SCC 14 , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chennai 2005(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 289 : (2005) 7 SCC 627 , Anand Singh v. State of U.P. 2010(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 32 : 2010(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 58 : (2010) 11 SCC 242 , and Radhy Shyam v. State of U.P. 2011(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 96 : 2011(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 197 : (2011) 5 SCC 553 , andthis context, it is necessary to remember that the rules of natural justice have been ingrained in the scheme of Sectionwith a view to ensure that before any person is deprived of his land by way of compulsory acquisition, he must get an opportunity to oppose the decision of the State Government and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to acquire the particular parcel of land. At the hearing, the objector can make an effort to convince the Land Acquisition Collector to make recommendation against the acquisition of his land. He can also point out that the land proposed to be acquired is not suitable for the purpose specified in the notification issued under Section 4(1). Not only this, he can produce evidence to show that another piece of land is available and the same can be utilised for execution of the particular project or scheme.Though it is neither possible nor desirable to make a list of the grounds on which the landowner can persuade the Collector to make recommendations against the proposed acquisition of land, but what is important is that the Collector should give a fair opportunity of hearing to the objector and objectively consider his plea against the acquisition of land. Only thereafter, he should make recommendations supported by brief reasons as to why the particular piece of land should or should not be acquired and whether or not the plea put forward by the objector merits acceptance. In other words, the recommendations made by the Collector must reflect objective application of mind to the objections filed by the landowners and other interested persons.In view of the proposition laid down in the judgments noticed herein above, it must be held that the acquisition of the appellants land was vitiated due toof Section 5A(2) of the Act and the High Court committed grave error by not considering this substantive ground of challenge.22. We also find considerable merit in the appellants criticism of the impugned order on the ground that the High Court did not quash the acquisition proceedings despite the fact that the material produced before it clearly revealed that the respondents had resorted to discrimination in acquiring some parcels of land, while leaving out other similar parcels of land. However, we do not consider it necessary to finally pronounce on this issue because we intend to direct Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon to comply with the mandate of Section 5A(2) and submit a fresh report by considering the objections filed by the appellants and giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing.