State of Haryana Vs. Sukhdev [1993] INSC 313 (28 July 1993)

Ramaswamy, K. Ramaswamy, K. Singh N.P. (J)

CITATION: 1994 AIR 1255 1995 SCC Supl. (1) 34

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

ORDER

1. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that some of the respondents in the following appeals had died and the appeals shall stand abated against the following respondents. Therefore, the appeals shall stand dismissed as abated against the following respondents:

4 AIR 1956 TC 129: 1956 Ker LT 126: ILR 1955 TC 1100 35

1. C.A. No. 2437/88 Respondent No. 1

2. C.A. Nos. 2403, 2432-33/88All respondents

3. C.A. No. 2408/88 Sole respondent

4. C.A. No. 2400/88 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

5. C.A. No. 2398/88 Respondent Nos. 1, 2,4 & 6

6. C.A. No. 2401/88 Respondent Nos. 1 & 3

7. C.A. No. 2402/88 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

8. C.A. No. 2404/88 Respondent Nos. 1 & 3

9. C.A. No. 2407/88 Respondent Nos. 1, 7, 12, 13, 16, 22, 24, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39 &

10. C.A. No. 2411/88 Sole respondent

11. C.A. No. 2412/88 Sole respondent

12. C.A. No. 2413/88 Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, & 5

13. C.A. No. 2414/88 Respondent No. 1

14. C.A. No. 2415/88 sole respondent

15. C.A. No. 2416/88 Respondent Nos. 3 & 4

16. C.A. No. 2418/88 Sole respondent

17. C.A. No. 2423/88 Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 5

18. C.A. No. 2425/88 Respondent Nos. 4, 7 & 8

19. C.A. No. 2426/88 Sole respondent

20. C.A. No. 2427/88 Sole respondent

21. C.A. No. 2428/88 Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 6

22. C.A. No. 2431/88 Sole respondent

23. C.A. No. 2434/88 Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4

24. C.A. No. 2436/88 Respondent No. 2

25. C.A. No. 2440/88 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

26. C.A. No. 2442/88 Respondent No. 1

27. C.A. No. 2430/88 Respondent No. 1

28. C.A. No. 2410/88 Respondent No. 2 As a consequence all the appeals stand abated against other respondents as being inseverable.

Accordingly dismissed.

In C.A. No. 673 of 1988 by order dated October (sic) 1989, this Court passed conditional order that the State Government may bring the Legal Representatives of Respondents 4, 5 and 8 within four weeks' time in default the appeal stands dismissed. No steps were taken. So the appeal stand abated against them. The decree being joint and inseparable it stands abated as against other respondents. It is accordingly dismissed.

2. In regard to other appeals, the cases have chequered history. Suffice to start with this the State Government had issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of Ajronda and Mujesar villages on 7-4-1986 and the notification was published in the State Gazette acquiring 7.91 acres of land for the development and utilisation as Green Belt opposite City Centre, Sector 12. In respect thereof, declaration under Section 6 was published on 6-4-1987 and an award also was made under the Land Acquisition Act on 13-3-1989. As a result, the acquisition in respect of that land has become final 36 and therefore, it must be deemed that it is valid acquisition and the interference of the High Court in respect of this land is illegal. The State appeals stand allowed to that extent. With regard to the rest of the lands, notifications were issued on 5-11-1971, 9-12-1973 and 6-11-1981 respectively in respect of lands in Mujesar, Daultabad, Fatehpur-Chandila acquiring 490.40 acres, 67.83 acres and 315.42 acres of land respectively, no declaration under Section 6 was made within three years as per the Amendment Act, 1967. As a result, the notifications under Section 4(1) shall stand lapsed. The notification issued under Section 4(1)on 6-2-1989 is acquiring 332.67 acres of land in Daultabad, Fatehpur-Chandila, Tilori Bangar, Ajronda and Mujesar. The High Court appears to have questioned that notification. Though the learned counsel for the State seeks to assail the correctness of the statement or the order, we express no opinion. It is open to the parties to take such action as is open according to law. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act issued again on 5-6-1992, a declaration under Section 6 also was stated to have been issued within one year from the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Under these circumstances, we decline to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in respect of the matters dealing with the Acquisition and requisition of the lands under Punjab Acquisition and Requisition Act, 1953. We do not express any opinion with regard to the merits on the acquisition of the lands and notification dated 6-2-1989 and 5-6-1992. They take their own course according to law. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the above extent of the 7.91 acres land covered by notification dated 7-4-1986 and in respect of the other lands appeals are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

 Back