Land acquisition for Faridabad sector 2 quashed 22 Feb. 2012 21:26 Lalit Kumar Chandigarh The Punjab and Haryana High Court has in a case on acquisition of land for development of Sector 2 Faridabad held that land acquisition cases where opportunity of hearing has not been granted despite the filing of objections can be equated with instances of not filing objections due to want of effective notice. In a judgment, the High Court bench of Justice MM Kumar and Justice Rajiv Narain Raina ruled that “a case in which objections have not been filed due to want of effective notice and cases where objections have been filed and no hearing granted should fall in the same category”. The ruling came on a 17-year-old petition by one Gulshan Malik and other petitioners. The petitioners had challenged the notifications dated 23 November 1992, issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, and declaration dated 19 November 1993 under section 6 of the Act. The public purpose cited for the acquisition was development and utilization of land for residential and commercial purpose for sector 2 Faridabad under the HUDA Act, 1977. The acquired land fell in Sihi and Unchagaon villages situated near Ballabhgarh town. The bench, on the conclusion of arguments, asserted, “The counsel appearing for the State of Haryana has not been able to show us any reliable evidence to show that hearing under Section 5-A of the Act was in fact given and due consideration accorded… The hearing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act cannot be reduced to mere formality. Under the Act, hearing under Section 5-A of the Act is one of the fundamental stages where a landowner can persuade the Collector for release of his land from acquisition. The right to property may no longer be a fundamental right but it remains a constitutional right under Article 300-A…. If the State, in the present case states that some objections were filed under Section 5-A would be of no help since no hearing was granted at the fixed date and venue… The chain of events confirms our view that the impugned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 deserve to be quashed for violation of mandatory provisions of Section 5-A of the Act.”