Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Chand vs State Of Haryana & Another on 30 September, 2013
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 30.09.2013
1. CWP No. 2813 of 2006
Prem Chand
.......... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & another
...... Respondents
*****
2. CWP No. 13074 of 2005
Hukam Singh & others
.......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & another
...... Respondents
*****
3. CWP No. 11064 of 2005
Rajinder Singh & others
.......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & others
...... Respondents
*****
4. CWP No. 6329 of 2006
Mukesh Devi
.......... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & another
...... Respondents
*****
5. CWP No. 18099 of 2006
Gulab Singh
.......... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & another
...... Respondents
*****
Satyawan
2013.10.04 18:16
"I attested to the accuracy and
integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 2813 of 2006 2
6. CWP No. 17620 of 2007
Sumitra Devi & others
.......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & another
...... Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate,
Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate
Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.
Ms. Indu Bala, Advocate for
Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate.
****
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
This judgment shall dispose of CWP Nos. 11064 & 13074 of 2005 and CWP Nos. 2813, 6329, 18099 of 2006 and CWP No. 17620 of 2007 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions.
2. The table below will give a glimpse of the acquired/released land in all the above writ petitions.
Satyawan 2013.10.04 18:16 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2813 of 2006 3 Sr. Writ Name of parties Land acquired Land Remarks No. Petition Released (if No. any)
1. 2813 of Prem Chand Rect. No. 18, Khasra No. 2006 vs. 19//10/1 measuring State of Haryana & Ors Killa No. 23 2K-15M min (2K-16Ms) and Rect. No. 19, Khasra No. 10/1(2-15)
2. 13074 of Hukam Singh Khasra Nos. Khasra No. 2005 vs. 10//4/3/2 (OB-
5B-0B), 7/2/2
State of Haryana & 11//15/1/1, (0B-7B-0B),
another 14/1 (1B-0B-
10//4/3/2/2, 0B),
11//15/1/1
10//7/2/2/2, 7/4, (0B-1B-0B)
having an area
14/1 of revenue of 1.65 acres
has been
notified.
estate of village However,
1.00 acre
Tikri land under
Khasra No.
10//4/3/2 (0B-
5B-0B), 7/2/2
(0B-7B-0B),
14/1(0B-0B-
0B) of village
Tikri stands
released
3 18099 of Gulab Singh vs. State Khewat No. Khasra No.
2006 of Haryana & another 76/112, Khasra 11/7/1/1 total
No. 11/7/1 area
measuring
(3Bigha 2 1419 Sq. Mts.
Biswas 0 Released out
Biswansi) of total 2844
situated within Sq. Mts.
the revenue
estate of village
Tikri, Tehsil
and District
Gurgaon
Satyawan
2013.10.04 18:16
"I attested to the accuracy and
integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 2813 of 2006 4
Sr. Writ Name of parties Land acquired Land Remarks
No. Petition Released (if
No. any)
4 6329 of Mukesh Devi vs. State Khasra No. Applied
2006 of Haryana & another 33//17 (5-17), for CLU to
construct
18/1 (7-4) of
Hotel, but
village Fazilpur his
Jhasra, District application
Gurgaon was
declined
as the
acquired
land falls
in
residential
Zone and
CLU for
commercia
l purpose
could not
be allowed
5 11064 of Rajinder Singh & Khasra No. Khasra No.
2005 others vs. State of 13//20/3/1, 10//3/1, ¾, 4/1
Haryana & others 10/3/1, ¾, 5/1, (min) (0B-6B-
7B), 4/3/1,
5/3/1, 4/2, 5/1, 5/3/1,
4/3/1, 11//25/1, 11//25/1, 25/2
25/2, 25/3, (0B-10B-0B),
10//7/4 of 25/3,
revenue estate 13//20/3/1
of village Tikri, min (0B-3B-
10B) total
District measuring
Gurgaon 23777.90 sq.
yards i.e. 4.83
acres of
village Tikri
6 17620 of Sumitra Devi & others The land of
2007 vs. State of Haryana & khewat No.
another 299, Khatoni
No. 308, Rect.
No. 33, Khasra
No. 17(5-17),
18/1 (7-4) --
situated at
village Fazilpur
Jhasra, Tehsil &
District
Gurgaon. The
petitioners have
½ share in 13K-
1M.
Satyawan
2013.10.04 18:16
"I attested to the accuracy and
integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh
CWP No. 2813 of 2006 5
3. The acquisition is for residential, commercial and institutional Sector-48, Gurgaon. As per the petitioners before acquiring the land proper survey of the constructions over the land of petitioners was not conducted. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was not published as required under law. The objections filed by petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act, were not duly considered. In Sector 48, Gurgaon not even a single piece of land has been developed by the HUDA. The entire sector has been developed by private colonizers such as Parsvnath, Uppal South End, Aldico etc. The petitioners have termed the acquisition of their land as totally irrational and arbitrary.
4. The respondents in the separate written statements/ affidavits have repelled the contentions of the petitioners. The plea taken by the respondents are enumerated as follows :- In CWP No. 2813 of 2006
(Prem Chand vs. State of Haryana & another)
5. The respondent(s) have repelled the contention of the petitioners with the plea that the acquired land bearing Khasra No. 18//23 falls in service Road and green belt.In CWP No. 6329 of 2006
(Mukesh Devi vs. State of Haryana & another)
6. Part of the acquired land falls within 30 m wide green belt proposed along Gurgaon-Sohna-Alwar scheduled road as notified in the Final Development Plan of Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex 2021 and is proposed to be utilized for widening of road, public utility services etc., while the other part has been proposed to be utilized for fire station. Satyawan 2013.10.04 18:16 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2813 of 2006 6 In CWP No. 18099 of 2006 (Gulab Singh vs. State of Haryana & another)
7. Out of the total area under acquisition bearing khasra No. 11/7/1 (3B-2B-0B i.e. 1.937 acres) 1264 sq. yards, i.e., 0.26 acres falls within 30 m wide green belt proposed along Gurgaon - Sohna - Alwar scheduled road as notified in the Final Development Plan of Gurgaon- Manesar-Urban Complex-2021. The said land falling in green belt is proposed to be utilized for widening of road, public utility services and uses conforming to the provisions of the Final Development Plan Gurgaon- Manesar-Urban Complex-2021 AD.
CWP No. 13074 of 2005 (Hukam Singh & others vs. State of Haryana & another)
8. The acquired land falls in 12 meter wide internal road, 30 meter wide green belt and planned residential plots. CWP No. 11064 of 2005 (Rajinder Singh & others vs. State of Haryana & another)
9. The acquired land is proposed to be utilised for 24 meters and 18 meters wide internal approach roads and residential plots as per the tentative layout plan of Sector 48.
CWP No. 17620 of 2007 (Sumitra Devi & others vs. State of Haryana & another)
10. No written statement was filed by HUDA in this case. However, during course of arguments the learned DAG, Haryana has submitted that Mukesh Devi-petitioner in CWP No. 6329 of 2006 and Sumitra Devi petitioner in CWP No. 17620 of 2007 are co-sharers in Khasra No. 33//17, 18/1 and their case stand on the same footing. Satyawan 2013.10.04 18:16 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2813 of 2006 7
11. The other pleas of the petitioners have also been repelled and it has been averred that the acquired land in Sector 48, Gurgaon is proposed to be utilised by HUDA for religious buildings, Police Post, Residential Plots and other public utility services.
12. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the paper book perused with their assistance.
13. The main argument of the petitioners is that the entire Sector 48, Gurgaon has been developed by the private developers. There are small pockets of land in this Sector left with HUDA, which can not be put to any use for regulated planned development, as such, land of the petitioners deserves to be released. The total land notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act was about 500 acres out of which 150 acres was released even before issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act. The State had acted in arbitrary and discriminatory manner while considering the objections of the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act. The properties of the influential persons have been released while the petitioners have not been allowed the same benefit despite the fact that they have raised construction over their land. The plea of respondents that the land having 'B' or 'C' class construction cannot be released, has no basis in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 545.
14. Learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State has argued that it is a case where no discrimination has been made while releasing the property based on class of construction. The Sector 48, Gurgaon was developed by the private colonizers but they have paid Satyawan 2013.10.04 18:16 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2813 of 2006 8 external development fee to the State and the State has to provide all public amenities like school, hospital, fire station, road, sewerage treatment plant, Petrol pump etc. for use of the residents of this Sector, for which Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) is utilising the land in small pockets reserved for the aforesaid users. Most of the acquired land of petitioners i.e. Gulab Singh in CWP No. 18099 of 2006, Prem Chand in CWP No. 2813 of 2006 will be utilised for widening of road, service road and green belts. The portion of the land of Mukesh Devi & Sumitra Devi petitioner in CWP No. 6329 and 17620 of 2006 falls in the road and green belt, being developed by HUDA. The land of Prem Chand bearing Khasra No. 19//10/1 measuring 2K-15M, Hukam Singh & others measuring one acre, Gulab Singh measuring 1419 Sq. meter out of 2844 Sq. meter, Rajinder Singh & others (petitioners in CWP No. 11064 of 2005) measuring 23777.90 Sq. yards i.e. 4.83 acres has already been released. All this reflect thoughtful and considerate attitude of the Land Acquisition Authorities towards the objections filed by the petitioners.
15. It has further been argued by the learned DAG, Haryana that the entire left out land with HUDA will be used for bona fide public purposes and no portion of it shall be released in favour of any private builder. The acquisition of land vide notification dated 27.11.2003 and 24.11.2004 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act has already been upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 21.4.2008 in CWP No. 11618 of 2005.
16. The respondents, in affidavits filed in all the petitions except in CWP No. 17620 of 2007 have detailed the proposed user of land of the petitioners for bona fide, public purpose. The relevant part of the same is Satyawan 2013.10.04 18:16 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2813 of 2006 9 reproduced as follows:-
CWP No. 2813 of 2006 (Prem Chand vs State of Haryana & another) "4. That the total coming under khasra No. 19//10/1 measuring 2K-15M i.e. 1663.75 sq. yards or 0.343 acres stands released by the Government and license under section -3 of Urban Area Act no. 8 of 1975 stands granted to the owner/petitioner by Directed (sic Director), Town & Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh vide license No. 570 of 2006 dated 24.03.2006.
5. That the remaining land of the petitioner falling in khasra No. 18//23 (min) measuring 2K-16M, i.e., 1694 sq. yards or 0.35 acre is located along Gurgaon-Sohna-Alwar Scheduled Road, out of which approx. 1100 sq. yards i.e. 0.227 acre falls within 30m wide green belt proposed along Gurgaon-Sohna-Alwar scheduled road as notified in the Final Development Plan of Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex-2021. The said land falling in green belt is proposed to be utilized for widening of road, public utility services and uses conforming to the provisions of the Final Development Plan Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex-2021 AD.
That the remaining land of this khasra No. 18//23 (min) has been proposed to be utilized for Petrol Pump, as pere the tentative layout plan of sector -48 bearing drawing No. DTP (G)-1583/2007 dated 16.4.2007. The layout plan is, however, subject to change after the acquisition proceedings of the land pockets vest with HUDA. The copy of tentative layout plan showing the land of the petitioner is appended at Annexure R-
1."
CWP No. 13074 of 2005(Hukam Singh & others vs State of Haryana & another) "4. That the total measuring 1.86 acres claimed in the CWP, the land falling under khasra No. 10//4/3/2 (0B-5B-0B), 7/2/2 (0B-7B-0B), 14/1 (1B-0B-0B), 11//15/1/1 (0B-1B-0B) having Satyawan 2013.10.04 18:16 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2813 of 2006 10 an area of 1.65 acres has been notified. However, 1.00 acre land under Khasra No. 10//4/3/2 (0B-5B-0B), 7/2/2 (0B-7B- 0B), 14/1 (0B-0B-0B) of village Tikri stands released by the Government.
5. That the remaining land of the petitioners is falling in khasra No. 11//15/1/1 min (0B-1B-0B), 10//7/4 (1B-0B-0B), total measuring 1B-1B-1B i.e. 0.65 acres (3176.25 sq. yds.). Out of this land, approx, 151 sq. yards i.e. 0.031 acre of khasra No. 11//15/1/1 is falling within 30 m wide green belt proposed along Gurgaon-Sohna-Alwar scheduled road as notified in the Final Development Plan of Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex-2021. The said land falling in green belt is proposed to be utilized for provision of service road, public utility services and uses conforming to the provisions of the Final Development Plan Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex 2021- AD.
The petitioners land falling in khasra No. 10//7/4 measuring 1B-0B-0B i.e. 3025 sq. yards as per the layout plan of sector-48 Gurgaon, bearing drawing No. DTP(G)- 1838/2009 dated 16.02.2009 is proposed utilized for 12 mtrs wide internal approach road and residential plots. This layout plan is, however, subject to change after the acquisition proceedings are completed in all respects and actual physical possession of the land pockets vest with HUDA. The copy of layout plan showing the land of the petitioner is appended at Annexure-R-I."
CWP No. 11064 of 2005(Rajinder Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others) "4. That out of the total land claimed, under khasra No. 10//3/1, ¾, 4/1 (min) (OB-6B-7B), 4/3/1, 5/1, 5/3/1, 11//25/1, 25/2 (B-10B-0B), 25/3, 13//20/3/1 min (OB-3B-10B) total measuring 23777.90 sq. yards i.e. 4.83 acres of village Tikri stands released by the Government and licence No. 575 of 2006 dated 24.03.2006 has already been granted for khasra Satyawan 2013.10.04 18:16 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2813 of 2006 11 No. 10//3/1, ¾, 4/1 (min) (0B-8B-7B), 11//25/1, 25/2 (0B-3B- 7B) to the owner/petitioner by the competent Authority under section 3 of Urban area Act No. 8 of 1975 by the Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh.
5. That the aforesaid land is proposed to be utilized for religious building, police post and for residential plots as per the tentative layout plan of sector-48 bearing drawing No. DTP(G)-1583/ 2007 dated 16.4.2007. The copy of tentative layout plan showing the land of the petitioner is appended at Annexure R-1.
6. The remaining land of said khasra Nos. 13//20/3/1 (min) (0B-4B-10B), 10//4/1 (min) (0B-11B-13B), 10//7/4 (1B-0B-0B) total measuring 1B-16B-3B i.e. 1.129 acre has been notified. The aforesaid land has been proposed to be utilized for 24 mtrs. And 18 mtrs. wide internal approach roads and for residential plots as per the layout plan of sector-48 bearing drawing No. Drawing No. DTP(G)-1838/09 dated 16.02.2009. This layout plan is, however, subject to change after the acquisition proceedings are completed in all respects and actual physical possession of the land pockets vest with HUDA. The copy of tentative layout plan showing the land of the petitioner is appended at Annexure-R-I."
17. The petitioners in this writ petition filed Civil Miscellaneous No. 13564 of 2009, wherein they have admitted that some portion of their land, which is the subject matter of this writ petition has been released. They wanted to withdraw their writ petition in order to confine their claim only to the portion, which is not to be used for road. However, the application to withdraw the writ petition was declined vide order dated 18.8.2009, which reads as follows :-
"Through the civil miscellaneous application the applicant- petitioners desire to withdraw the instant writ petition with Satyawan 2013.10.04 18:16 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2813 of 2006 12 liberty to file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. This submission has been made on account of the fact, that a part of the land of the petitioners which was sought to be acquired has since been released, whereas, remaining part thereof is still subject to acquisition. This can hardly be a justification to allow the petitioners to withdraw the instant writ petition, so as to enable them to file a fresh writ petition. The instant writ petition was filed in the year 2005, written statements on behalf of the respondents have already been filed. Rather than going through the same process all over again this Court would be saving time if the controversy is adjudicated upon on the basis of the pleadings already on the record of the case.
In view of the above, the instant civil miscellaneous application is dismissed."
CWP No. 6329 of 2006 (Mukesh Devi vs. State of Haryana & another) "5. That the total are ( land-sic) under the said khasra Nos. is 13K-1M i.e. 1.63 acres out of which 780 sq. yards i.e. 0.161 acre falls within 30 m wide green belt proposed along Gurgaon-Sohna-Alwar scheduled road as notified in the Final Development Plan of Gurgaon Manesar Urban Complex 2021. The said land falling in green belt is proposed to be utilized for widening of road, public utility services and uses conforming to the provisions of the Final Development Plan Gurgaon - Manesar Urban Complex-2021 AD.
The remaining land of said khasra Nos. has been proposed to be utilized for fire station alongwith the other adjoining land as per the tentative layout plan of sector-48, Satyawan 2013.10.04 18:16 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2813 of 2006 13 Gurgaon bearing Drawing No. DTP(G)-1583/2007 dated 16.04.2007. The copy of tentative layout plan showing the land of the petitioner is appended at Annexure-R-1.
A copy of the said site plan pertaining to the land on which construction exists at site as on date is also attached at Annexure-R-II.
That the petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the said notification dated 27.11.2003 at this stage as the petitioner did not file objections under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2320 of 2007 referred as 2007(3) RCR (Civil) page 499 Talson Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others."
CWP No. 18099 of 2006
(Gulab Singh vs. State of Haryana & another) "5. That the total area under the said khasra No. is 3B-2B- 0B i.e. 1.937 acres out of which 1264 sq. yards, i.e., 0.26 acres falls within 30 m wide green belt proposed along Gurgaon - Sohna - Alwar scheduled road as notified in the Final Development Plan of Gurgaon-Manesar-Urban Complex-2021. The said land falling in green belt is proposed to be utilized for widening of road, public utility services and uses conforming to the provisions of the Final Development Plan Gurgaon- Manesar-Urban Complex-2021 AD.
That the remaining land of this khasra No. has been proposed to be utilized for establishing a High School Satyawan 2013.10.04 18:16 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2813 of 2006 14 including the surround land, as per tentative layout plan of sector-48, Gurgaon bearing drawing No. DTP(G)-1583/2007 dated 16.4.2007. This layout plan is, however, subject to change after the acquisition proceedings are completed in all respects and actual physical possession of the land pockets vest with HUDA. The copy of tentative layout plan showing the land of the petitioner is appended at Annexure R-1."
18. The above averments clearly reflect that the respondents have already released the constructed portions with open space as well as the land for which CLU was obtained by the petitioners. During the course of arguments the learned DAG has produced the latest photographs of the land being acquired in all the writ petitions, which show that there is no residence over the acquired land rather these are small temporary structures unauthorisedly constructed with a view to hamper the use of the land by the State for bona fide public purposes. The land of the writ petitioners in CWP No. 18099 of 2006 (Gulab Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr.) and CWP No. 6329 of 2006 (Mukesh Devi vs. State of Haryana & Anr.) falls on the main Gurgaon-Sohna road. The major chunk of this land falls in the green belt, service road etc. The respondents have clearly defined and declared the user of the land of the writ petitioners in their affidavits as discussed above. The averments in affidavits of respondents and the documents on file clearly make out that the acquired land is required by the respondents for bona fide public purposes. The observations in the case of Sube Singh (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as it is not a case of discrimination in the release of land based on the type of construction. It Satyawan 2013.10.04 18:16 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 2813 of 2006 15 was after considering the objections that the authorities have released the portion of the acquired land of the petitioners in CWP Nos. 2813, 18099 of 2006 and 13074, 11064 of 2005
19. From the facts and circumstances discussed above, we find no merit in the claim made by any of the petitioner(s), consequently the writ petitions are dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the acquired land shall be used by respondent No.3 for bona fide public purposes within a reasonable time and the same shall not be released, allotted or transferred in favour of private Builder-cum-Developer, failing which the petitioner(s) shall be at liberty to raise a fresh plea for the release of their acquired land.
(SURYA KANT) (SURINDER GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
30.09.2013
'Satyawan'
Satyawan
2013.10.04 18:16
"I attested to the accuracy and
integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh