Punjab-Haryana High Court
Archna Gupta vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 29 November, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.21519 of 2012
Date of Decision: November 29, 2013
Archna Gupta .....Petitioner
versus
The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).
Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy AG, Haryana.
Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate, for HUDA.
Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
-.-
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?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.21519, 22059 and 22564 of 2012 as all the three cases pertain to and impugn the same acquisition process. However, for better appreciation of the points in issue, the facts of each case are being briefly noticed.
(i) CWP No.21519 of 2012(Archna Gupta vs. State of Haryana & others) [2] The petitioner impugns the notifications dated 26.08.2003 and 10.08.2004 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act') as well as the order dated 4.11.2011 (Annexure P16). In addition, the petitioner also challenges the policy decisions of the State Government including dated 26.10.2007 (Annexures P-3 and P-28) alleging that these Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [2] ultra-vires the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution. [3] The notifications are being impugned by the petitioner to the extent of acquisition of her land measuring 16 marlas situated in village Shahpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The petitioner though has not disclosed the date of purchase of the land but according to the respondents, she purchased it on 10.10.1995. The plot of the petitioner's land adjoins the DLF Qutub Enclave, Phase-II, Gurgaon near Dehli-Jaipur National Highway No.8. The petitioner's plot alongwith some other land has been acquired for its development and utilization for "residential, commercial, institutional, green-belt of Sections 24, 25 and 25-A of Gurgraon to be developed by Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, HUDA)". The award of the land was announced on 4.2.2013. The petitioner's case is that at the time when she purchased the plot, it was a part of the 'residential zone' as per the development plan formulated under Section 5 of the Punjab Schedule Roads and Controlled Area (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963. [4] It may be noticed at the outset that the writ petition is loaded with the allegations against DLF Universal Limited (respondent No.5) alleging that the petitioner and a few other similarly placed plot-holders refused to sell their respective plots to respondent No.5 who had carved out a residential colony in the surrounding area and having failed to strike the bargain that the land got acquired by the DLF with an alterier motive to get it released in its favour after the acquisition attains finality. The petitioner's case on merits is that she purchased the land to construct a residential house and has built-up rooms with 'B' class construction. The Care Taker of the plot has kept some domestic animals for private purpose in the said plot. The petitioner on coming to know Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [3] about the issuance of Section 4 notification, filed objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act (Annexure P-7) but the same were mechanically rejected as the acquisition was carried out with an ulterior motive.
[5] The petitioner avers that the lands of all those land-owners were exempted from acquisition who entered into collaboration agreement with DLF Universal Limited, hence acquisition was a colourable exercise of powers. The petitioner claims that the Land Acquisition Collector sent his recommendations on the petitioner's objections "without affording appropriate opportunity of hearing" and based upon those recommendations, Section 6 notification was issued contrary to the settled law.
[6] The petitioner also alleges discrimination against her in the matter of release of the acquired plots as huge chunks of land was released while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act only because some land-owners meanwhile entered into a collaboration agreement with DLF Universal Limited. Another example is given of the builder- M/s Palam Vihar Construction Private Limited who was granted one Change of Land Use (for short, 'CLU') permission for setting-up local service industry (Bakery) and another for residential house for its vacant land. This CLU permission was granted on 12.1.2010 and 11.2.2010 and the land was released from acquisition. The petitioner also applied for CLU permission on 27.09.2004 alongwith requisite documents submitted on 30.10.2004 but the decision taken on her application was never conveyed.
[7] The petitioner then filed Civil Writ Petition No.15025 of 2004 which was disposed of on 16.07.2005 on the statement made by the Advocate General, Haryana, that various grievances raised by the writ-petitioners shall be gone into by a High Powered Committee.
Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [4] [8] The petitioner also submitted a representation on 30.08.2005 (Annexure P-15) to the High Powered Committee. It is averred that the composition of High Powered Committee kept on changing every time though it met on several occasions including on 03.02.2006, 29.11.2010, 27.12.2010 and 28.06.2011. The High Powered Committee finally vide order dated 04.11.2011 rejected the petitioner's representation (Annexure P-16). On the other hand, the land of identically placed owners, namely Smt.Shakuntla Yadav, Smt.Sushma Kumari, Brahm Parkash etc. have been released on pick and choose basis (Annexures P-17 to P-19). Similarly, CLU permission has been granted to various persons including M/s DLF Universal Limited, Amar Singh son of Inder Singh, Mangal Singh, Gajraj Singh and Rajmal etc. [9] Since the above stated indiscriminate treatment has been meted out to the land owners on the basis of one or the other policy-decisions including dated 26.10.2007, the petitioner challenges those policy decisions as well. [10] Thus, according to the petitioner, the impugned acquisition of her plot is unsustainable on the grounds that (i) the acquisition is for the benefit of DLF Universal Limited- respondent No.5, hence it is a colourable exercise of power;
(ii) no 'public purpose' can be achieved by acquiring very small size scattered plots by HUDA as the petitioner's plot on all sides is developed and surrounded by the land of DLF Universal Limited and HUDA-respondent No.3 has no other land in the vicinity to achieve the public purpose; (iii) the petitioner's objections under Section 5-A of 1894 Act have not been decided in accordance with law; (iv) the petitioner's claim for grant of CLU has been arbitrarily withheld; (v) the land of similarly placed persons have been released on pick and choose basis, and (vi) the impugned policy decisions are Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [5] nothing but a device to practice discrimination. [11] The State of Haryana, High Powered Committee and the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Gurgaon, have filed their common written-statements, inter-alia, averring that the notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act was published in the Haryana Government Gazette on the date it was issued, i.e., 26.08.2003. The entry was duly made by the Patwari vide rapat N.2 dated 01.09.2003. It was also published in two daily newspapers, namely, Amar Ujala (Hindi) dated 29.08.2003 and The Hindu (English) on 31.08.2003. The substance of the notification was also pasted on the notice-board of Halqa Patwarkhana and Tehsil office. The Munadi was also got conducted. The objections filed by the land-owners were duly considered by the Land Acquisition Collector who also gave an opportunity of hearing to the owners/interested persons. The petitioner was also duly heard before making recommendations to acquire her land. The procedure contemplated under the 1894 Act was minutely followed while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act also. It has been further explained that "besides the recommendations of the LAC, the matter was also examined by the Joint Site Inspection Committee (JSIC) headed by Administrator, HUDA., Gurgaon and comprising of Senior Town Planner, HUDA, Senior Town Planner, Gurgan, District Town Planner, Gurgaon and Superintending Engineer, HUDA, Gurgaon. JSIC also sent the report to the Government. After going through the entire record and the reports of the LAC and Joint Site Inspection Committee, the Government decided to issue the declaration under Section 6 of the Act."
[12] As regard to the petitioner's allegations that the land was being acquired for the colonizers, para No.4 of the written statement says as:-
Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [6] "4. That the allegation that the land is being acquired for colonizers is completely baseless.
It is submitted that the land in dispute alongwith other lands is being acquired for HUDA to be utilized for public purpose i.e., for development of residential, commercial, infrastructure and green belt in sectors 24, 25, 25-A Gurgaon and, regarding utilization of land by HUDA detailed reply is to be filed by the respondent No.3. However, during the deliberation in the HPC, it was noted that the land of the petitioners adjoins the vacant site, therefore, can be gainfully utilized for the intended purpose. Further, it is submitted that award of land measuring 12.64 acres have already been announced and no land has been transferred to any private colonizer. Therefore, there was no occasion for the State to initiate the land acquisition proceedings under part VII of the Act. Hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed....."
(emphasis applied) [13] Defending its action regarding grant of licence to the colonizers who possess the requisite land for that purpose, it is claimed in the written statement:-
"(G). That apart from above, the State Government has also formulated a policy prescribing the minimum area norms so as to utilize optimum land alongwith the basic amenities & facilities for the population of the colony like Community Centre, Open Space, Dispensary, Crèche, Religious Building, Police Post, Post Office, Dispensary, Neighbourhood Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [7] Shopping etc. The State has been divided into zones on the basis of their potential. For Hyper/High Potential Zones, the minimum area required for Residential Plotted Colony is 100 acres, for medium potential zone it is 50 acres and in case of low potential zones minimum 25 acres is required to be eligible to apply for a license. Similarly, in case of group housing colonies, the minimum area requirement for hyper, high zone is 10 acres and medium potential for lower potential zone is 5 acres is required. Similarly, the parameters for industrial/commercial colonies have also been prescribed. In order to provide for the social infrastructure/ utilities, composite norms have been fixed based on the population projections of a colony. This ensures that the colonizers provide the infrastructure in a hierarchical manner i.e. ranging from nursery school to senior secondary school, dispensaries/health centres, space for electrical sub stations, religious building sites, club and community centers etc. The colonizer also contributes towards the development of town level social/physical infrastructure by paying the external development charges & infrastructural development charges....."
(emphasis applied) [14] HUDA, through its Estate Officer-II, Gurgaon, has filed its separate written statement defending the public purpose for which the subject acquisition has been made. The allegations made by the petitioner have been controverted.
Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [8] [15] Respondent No.5-DLF Universal Limited has also filed its written statement controvering the allegations of the petitioner and defending the release of its own licensed land from acquisition. It is averred as follows:-
"....3. That the petitioners' contention that the acquisition of their land was a colourable exercise of power for personal gains of the answering respondent and that impugned action of acquiring his land and releasing lands of others is discriminatory is totally baseless and false. The land belonging to the answering respondent was left out from the acquisition, because the answering respondent had already been granted the licence for development much prior to the issuance of notifications issued under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is submitted that the notification under Section 4 of the said Act (Annexure P-6) was not issued at the instance and for the benefit of the answering respondent. It is submitted that a huge chunk of land was released while issuing the said declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The allegation that the lands belonging to the answering respondent were released illegally is denied. In fact, the answering respondent had also been issued licence regarding plot Nos.1, 2, 17 & 18 much prior to the issuance of notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. While Plot No.2 falls under Licence Nos.75 & 76 of 1996, plots No.1, 17 & 18 fall under Licence No.78 of 1996. Copies of these licenses are collectively Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [9] annexed with this written statement as Annexure R-5/2....."
(emphasis applied) [16] The petitioner has filed replication to the above- mentioned written statements reiterating her allegations and has also placed on record another order dated 04.11.2011 passed by the High Powered Committee for the release of some additional land of Smt.Poonam Yadav.
(ii) CWP No.22059 of 2012(Sudhir Kumar and ors Vs. State of Haryana & ors) [17] The three writ petitioners in this case also impugn the same set of notifications to the extent of acquisition of their plot Nos.3 & 15 situated within the revenue estate of village Shahpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon near Delhi- Jaipur National Highway No.8. The petitioners have been duly recorded as owners of the plots in the jambandi for the year 1998-99 (Annexure P-1). The petitioners have also challenged the acquisition of their plots on the grounds identical to those taken by the petitioner-Archna Gupta in her case. The party-respondents, factual averments, allegation of discrimination, alleged instances of discrimination and the reliefs sought by the petitioners in this case are similar to those pleaded or sought by Archna Gupta in CWP No.21519 of 2012.
(iii) CWP No.22564 of 2012(Dr.Umang Mann vs. State of Haryana and others) [18] The petitioner in this case owns two plots numbering 4 & 14 in the revenue estate of Village Shahpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon which have since been acquired vide the impugned notifications. The petitioner also impugns the acquisition of his plots on identical grounds as have been taken by the petitioner-Archna Gupta in her case. The party- respondents, factual averments, allegation of discrimination, alleged instances of discrimination and the reliefs sought by Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [10] the petitioners in this case are identical to those pleaded or sought by Archna Gupta in CWP No.21519 of 2012. The petitioner has also placed on record some photographs (Annxure P-4) to urge that a 'residential house' has been constructed on the acquired land.
[19] From the averments made by the parties and the issues canvassed before us during the course of hearing, it appears that the following questions arise for determination:-
i) Whether the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of 1894 Act have been decided contrary to law?
ii) Whether the impugned acquisition is an outcome of colourable exercise of power?
iii) Whether the action of the respondents in releasing a part of the acquired land and denying such benefit to the petitioners is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution?
iv) Whether the action of the respondents in denying CLU permission to the petitioners is also arbitrary and discriminatory?
v) Whether any bonafide public purpose can be achieved by acquisition of small size plots of the petitioners?
[20] The sustainability of the impugned acquisition shall entirely depend upon two issues, namely. (i) whether the objections filed under Section 5-A of 1894 Act have been dealt with in accordance with law and (ii) if yes, whether the acquisition has been made for the private benefit of respondent No.5?
[21] Relying upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (i) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited versus Darius Shapur Chenai and others (2005) 7 SCC 627; (ii) Raghbir Singh Sehrawat versus State of Haryana and others Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [11] (2012) 1 SCC 792, and (iii) Surinder Singh Brar and others versus Union of India and others (2013) SCC 403, it was vehemently contended that the consideration of objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act and the manner of recording of satisfaction must reflect the observance of principles of natural justice, due application of mind and fair hearing.
[22] The application of mind by the Collector while considering the objections under Section 5-A of 1894 Act is a question of fact. In the instant cases, the State has placed on record the opinion expressed by the Collector while considering the objections. For example, in the first case (CWP No.21519 of 2012), report of the Collector under Section 5-A of 1894 Act (Annexure R-1) reveals the existence of three rooms of 'B' and 'C' class construction before issuance of Section 4 notification. In the column of nature of objections, it is recorded that:
"....The applicant has stated in his applications that said land is lying in DLF City Phase-II. That said land is being acquired for Sector-24-25-25-A which is Residential Zone. This land is purchased for residential purpose. So, keep out it from acquisition....."
[23] The recommendations made by the Collector are to the following effect:
"..Spot inspection has been done. Hearing u/s 5 heard as per norms. So, it is appropriate to acquire....."
[24] The State Government instead of depending upon the report of the Collector alone, deputed a Joint Inspection Committee who visited the site and in respect of village Shahpur, made the following report:
Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [12] "....JIC inspected the area proposed for acquisition and the land pockets of those persons who raised objections u/s 5-A of Land Acquisition Act, on 28.06.2004 regarding village Shahpur, at Sr.No.1,7 & 8 objections have been raised by M/s DLF claiming their land to be a licenced one, regarding which verification is required to be made from the DTCP, Haryana office and accordingly further decision is required to be made. In case of objection raised at Sr.No.4, 5 & 10, 'A' class residential houses are constructed at site. LAC, Gurgaon in his 5-A report has recommended release of the constructions with proportionate open spece. JIC also recommends release of the houses with the condition that they will obtain change of land use permission of the land from DTCP, Haryana and follow controlled area rules and regulations. In rest of the land pockets regarding which objections are raised, either the land is lying vacant or some 'C' class temporary constructions are raised which are not recommended for release......."
(emphasis applied) [25] Thereafter, the land for which the licence has already been granted or where residential houses were constructed, were ordered to be released whereas declaration of acquisition in respect of the remaining land including the vacant plots or temporary structures of the petitioners, was made vide notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act.
Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [13] [26] We do not see any procedural irregularities or a casual approach by the authorities or non-consideration of any objection of substantive nature raised on behalf of the petitioners at their end. We may hasten to add that the claim of the petitioners against non-grant of CLU permission, in our considered view, could neither be an objection falling within the ambit of Section 5-A of the 1894 Act nor it was available to the petitioners for the reason that the application for CLU permission itself was made by them after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. It was an after thought exercise undertaken by them, may be to save their land from acquisition. We do not see any discrimination done while considering the objections under Section 5-A of 1894 Act as the land for which a licence under the provisions of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 had been granted or the land where the owner had constructed his residential house which the family is using for bonafide residential purposes, constitute a separate and distinct class in-comparison to the land which is lying vacant and whose owner otherwise owns a separate house where he resides. The distinction drawn by the authorities while 'releasing' or 'acquiring' the land thus satisfies the test of reasonable classification.
[27] Another crucial question raised on behalf of the petitioners through voluminous pleadings is whether the impugned acquisition suffers from the vice of colourable exercise of power and is actually meant for the private benefit of the builder-respondent No.5?
[28] This issue also need not detain us for long in view of the categoric stand taken by the State in para No.4 of the written-statement, as reproduced in para No.12 of this order, wherein it is averred in unequivocal terms that the acquired land shall be utilized by HUDA and has not been acquired for Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [14] DLF Universal Limited. To keep the record straight, it may be mentioned here that during the course of hearing, learned State counsel on specific instructions, stated at the bar that not even a single piece of the acquired land has been or shall be released in favour of respondent No.5 or any other private builder. The very basis of accusing it as a malicious acquisition thus falls flat.
[29] There is no gain saying and it has been so held in Regal Orcha Hotal Limited and another vs. G.Jairam Reddy, (2011) 10 SCC 608, that the State can compulsorily acquire land of private persons in exercise of power of eminent domain, but this proposition cannot be over stressed to legitimize a patently illegal and fraudulent exercise undertaken for depriving the land-owners of their constitutional right to the property with a view to favour a private builder. It was further ruled that if land is to be acquired for a Company, the State Government and the Company are bound to comply with the mandate of the provisions contained in para VII of the 1894 Act. On hypothetical basis, there could thus be no other conclusion but to declare the acquisition a colourable exercise of powers if it was found to have been made for the direct or indirect benefit of respondent No.5 or any other private builder. [30] Not only the official respondents have taken a categoric stand to falsify the petitioners' unfounded allegations, respondent No.5 has also in its written statement refuted the same. We do not find any relativity between the interest of respondent No.5 or the acquired land as even according to the petitioners, their surrounding land has already been developed and sold by respondent No.5 as a residential colony. Be that as it may, with a view to allay the apprehension in the mind of petitioners, it is directed that the HUDA or any other State-Agency alone shall utilize the Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [15] acquired land for the notified or any other ancillary public purpose and no part of the acquired land shall be released in favour of respondent No.5 or any other private developer- builder.
[31] We may now advert to the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioners in the mater of release of the acquired land. It is not controverted by the respondents that two types of land has been released out of the subject acquisition. One parcel of land is owned by respondent No.5 for which licence under the 1975 Act was admittedly granted before issuance of Section 4 notification. The State Government having issued the licence for the development of the land as per the zoning plan and having received statutory charges including external or internal development charges from respondent No.5, could not have acquired the licenced land, hence no fault can be found with the release of such land. As regard to the second set of land of Shakuntla Yadav etc., the petitioners have not disputed the fact that residential house(s) had been constructed much before issuance of Section 4 notification and she or other owners had applied for grant of 'CLU' permission before initiation of acquisition process. These facts are duly noticed by the High Powered Committee in its order dated 4.11.2011 which the petitioner in the first case has placed on record with her replication and relevant part of which reads as follows:-
"....The Committee noted that the change of land use application was already rejected by the Department on 28.05.2003 on grounds of existence of the constructions being part of the unauthorized colony in violation of the provisions of Act No.8 of 1975 and also the unauthorized constructions in contravention of Act No.41 of `963. However, Committee Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [16] noted that a practice is being followed in the Department of Urban Estate Haryana not to acquire the inhabited residential constructions raised prior to Section-4 Notification. While excluding such structures, proportionate open area is also excluded for beneficial enjoyment of such construction. The Committee also noted that at the time of Section 4 Notification the Land Acquisition Collector has noted existence of 530.70 sd. Yards of construction in Plot Nos.10 & 11 of the applicant, whereas the area excluded from Section 6 is 665.50 sq. yards. It has been noted as per above referred practice being followed in the Urban Estates Department to exclude proportionate vacant area, in this case also, the similar treatment needs to be given by the applicant. Therefore, the committee decided to release the remaining area of plot No.12//4/2/2, 5/1, 6/1, 7/2/10 measuring 302.5 square yards....."
[32] Both these yardsticks do not apply to the acquired land of the petitioners. Neither did they apply nor got any licence under the 1975 Act. As per their own case, they did not construct any residential house or lived therein. We may, at this stage, refer to the communication Annexure P-4 relied upon by Dr.Umag Mann in CWP No.22564 of 2012 to contend that he has built a residential house. The communication clearly reveals that the roofs are of tin sheds and construction is temporary in nature though it is projected as a residential house.
[33] The petitioners, who apparently belong to the affluent class of society have their own residential houses in Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [17] different urban areas as disclosed in the writ petitions and none of them have constructed any house except temporary structure(s) on the acquired land. The location of the land sufficiently indicates that they purchased it purely for speculative gains and even after purchasing in the year 1995 or prior thereto, neither they applied for the grant of CLU nor utilized the land for any bonafide purpose. The fact that these plots were lying vacant till they were acquired in the year 2003-2004 is sufficient to infer that the same were purchased for the real estate business or for a purpose other than the bonafide residential use.
[34] The plea of the petitioners that the small piece of acquired land can not be utilized for any public purpose by HUDA is totally pre-mature and misconceived. There are several obligations to be fulfilled by the State and its agencies like construction of health centre, schools, park, convenient stores, power sub-station etc. under the scheme of licence for which they receive huge amount of external development charges from the colonizers and residents of such localities are entitled to seek these amenities. In any case, in terms of the directions already issued, HUDA is under obligation to utilize the acquired land for one or the other public purpose in accordance with the identified priorities. [35] Still further, we do not want to leave any room to doubt regarding utilization of the acquired land for public utilities in larger public interest. We, therefore, direct the State Government and HUDA to formulate and finalize their plan for utilization of the acquired sites and set-up such public utilities in a time bound manner. For this purpose, they shall notify the plans within one year and shall utilize the sites within two years thereafter. As directed in the earlier part of this order, the acquired sites shall not be transferred or exchanged in favour of any private builder-cum-developer. If Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [18] the State Government/HUDA fails to utilize the acquired sites for one or the other bonafide public purpose within the time schedule given above, the petitioners shall be at liberty to seek the release of their acquired land subject to its utilization as per the notified zoning plan.
[36] Adverting to the petitioners' challenge to the Government policies, including dated 26.10.2007, we find that though the petitioners have given some instances of alleged beneficiaries of these policies but none of them has been impleaded as a party-respondent. No order adverse to their interest can be passed in these circumstances. The petitioners do not pin-point any particular clause of the policy to be violative of Articles 14 or 300A of the Constitution, rather, they want a new clause to be added through the command of this Court so as to enable them to seek CLU permission as a matter of right. This would tantamount to re- writing the policy or taking over the functions of Executive even when the statute vide Section 48 (1) requires such an exercise to be undertaken by the appropriate Government only. We thus decline to express any view on the validity of the policies in question.
[37] For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any illegality in the subject acquisition and consequently, the writ petitions are ordered to be dismissed.
[38] This order, however, shall not preclude the petitioners from the benefit of allotment of alternative sites to which they are entitled to in accordance with the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy dated 9.11.2010. It may be mentioned here that in terms of the directions issued by us on 12.08.2013, HUDA authorities are required to identify the plots to be allotted to the petitioners as per the above-stated policy and the petitioners may, if so advised, accept the alternative sites without prejudice to the limited Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.10 15:59 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.21519 of 2012 & connected cases [19] right given to them in para 35 of this order.
Dasti.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
November 29, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA]
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2014.01.10 15:59
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh