WRIT PETITION 3759 of 1991 on 30 January 1989

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quashnotification dated January 30, 1989, issued under Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) to acquire a vast track of landincluding land owned by the petitioner falling in Khasras No. 5/23 and 14/3.Further challenge has been laid to a notification issued on January 25, 1990,under Section 6 of the Act. As per facts on record, land was acquired for apublic purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land asresidential and commercial area for Sector 30 at Gurgaon.

Heard counsel for the parties.

In this writ petition, it is specific case of the petitioners that inthe land under their ownership, they have constructed the residentialhouses. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that discrimination hasbeen done to the petitioner by not releasing their land, whereas a vast trackof land was released in favour of a Company known as M/S Unitech Ltd.To show that the construction was in existence, when notification underSection 4 of the Act was issued, reference was made to an averment made inpara No. 4 of the writ petition, wherein it is only stated that the petitioner'sresidential house is in existence in the land in dispute. To the contrary, inparagraph No. 2 of the writ petition, it is stated that the nature of the landowned by the petitioner was agricultural. Detail of the construction is notgiven. It has also come on record that when opportunity given, petitionerfailed to file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act.

In the reply filed, it has been stated as under:

“1. That the petitioner has not come to the court with cleanhands at all. The petitioner had alleged in para No. 4 of theCivil Writ Petition that he has constructed a house on the landin dispute. In fact, the land in dispute was completely vacant atthe time of the issuance of the3 notification u/s 4 of the LandAcquisition Act. A survey was conducted fully in accordancewith law and the land in dispute was completely vacant at therelevant time. Thus, the allegations regarding construction aretotally false and concocted. The petitioner has made false CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3759 OF 1991

allegations with malafide intentions. The Civil Writ Petitionmerits dismissal on this ground alone.

2. That the petitioner has not filed any objections u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act at all. The petitioner has got no right tochallenge the acquisition proceedings at this stage. The CivilWrit Petition filed by the petitioner merits dismissal on this soleground”

The respondents have taken a specific stand in the reply thatwhen land was ordered to be acquired, it was lying vacant and further thatpetitioner has not raised any objection to the proposed acquisition. To thewritten-statement, replication was not filed to show that the constructionwas in existence. Even photographs of the alleged construction were notput on record. So far as ground of discrimination is concerned, the same isalso not available to the petitioner. In the reply filed, it is stated that theland was released in favour of M/S Unitech Pvt. Ltd. Because a licence todevelop that land, as a colony, has already been sanctioned in favour of thesaid company. As the petitioners have failed to file objections under Section5-A of the Act, in view of ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin Delhi Administrationv. Gurdip Singh Uban and others ,AIR 1999Supreme Court 3822, this writ petition is not maintainable.