Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Mittal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 October, 2010
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Augustine George Masih
C.M. No. 15310 of 2010 and
CWP No. 18065 of 2009 and another connected case 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 27.10.2010
C.M. No. 15310 of 2010 and
CWP No. 18065 of 2009
Sanjay Mittal
..... PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
C.M. No. 15292 of 2010 and
CWP No. 20099 of 2009
Smt. Om Pati
..... PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana,
for respondents No. 1, 3 and 4.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate,
for respondent No. 2.
***
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
C.M. Nos. 15310 and 15292 of 2010 Applications are allowed and the documents annexed thereto are taken on record.
CWP Nos. 18065 of 2009 and 20099 of 2009 This order will dispose of CWP No. 18065 of 2009 titled as Sanjay Mittal vs. State of Haryana and others and CWP No. 20099 of C.M. No. 15310 of 2010 and CWP No. 18065 of 2009 and another connected case 2 2009 tilted as Smt. Om Pati vs. State of Haryana and others involving common question of law and facts. To dictate order, the facts are being mentioned from CWP No. 18065 of 2009.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to a notification dated 23.08.2007 (P-6) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') proposing to acquire a vast track of land including land of the petitioner. His further challenge is to a notification dated 21.08.2008 (P-8) issued under Section 6 of the Act. The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the development of residential and commercial Sector 8, Safidon.
It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that residential constructed houses of many land owners were released from acquisition, whereas, the said relief was not granted to him.
In response to notice issued, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner and his mother (petitioner in CWP No. 20099 of 2009) are the co-sharers in the land bearing Khasra No. 11//2/1 measuring 6 Kanal 15 Marlas and also Khasra No. 12/1/2. It is further stated that in the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, both of them had claimed exemption of land measuring 46'x56'. It is further stated that as per prayer made, in the name of the petitioner in CWP No. 20099 of 2009, land measuring 393.25 square yards was released, over which actually joint house of the petitioners, in both the writ petitions, is in existence. Rest of the land having less than 'C' class construction was ordered to be acquired.
Heard counsel for the parties.
C.M. No. 15310 of 2010 and CWP No. 18065 of 2009 and another connected case 3 After going through the records, it becomes apparently clear that the petitioners in both the writ petitions are co-sharers in the land under acquisition. Both filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. In this case, relevant objection reads thus:-
"2. That applicant had constructed one house measuring 44x56 feet in above mentioned land, and rest of the land is left un-constructed for future use. The area in which house is constructed is shown in red colour."
Along with the objection application, photographs and site plan were also annexed.
In CWP No. 20099 of 2009, relevant objection filed under Section 5-A of the Act also reads as under:-
"2. That applicant had constructed one house measuring 44x56 feet in above mentioned land, and rest of the land is left un-constructed for future use. The area in which house is constructed is shown in green colour."
On reconciliation of the site plan, it becomes apparently clear that an attempt has been made to create confusion to save the land from acquisition. It is apparent from the records that there is 'A' Class construction over the property jointly owned by the petitioners and that portion has been shown as house of the petitioner in this writ petition and rest of the area, in which some rooms have been constructed along with boundary wall, was shown as mother's residence. C.M. No. 15310 of 2010 and CWP No. 18065 of 2009 and another connected case 4 To a specific question put to the counsel as to whether, there exists a separate electric meter in the portion shown as mother's residence, on getting instructions from his client who is present in Court, it is specifically stated that no electricity meter exists in that portion.
To the prayer made, in the reply filed, following answer was given by the respondents:-
"3. The petitioner and other interested persons, who filed objections u/s-5A of the Act within prescribed period of limitation, were properly heard. After giving full opportunity of hearing, the then Land Acquisition Collector made a report on individual objections and sent the report with recommendations, to the Government for final decision. Almost all the constructed areas have been left from the acquisition except those existed in the green belt area or the Sector roads. The petitioner is co-owner of the land in dispute with his mother Smt. Ompati w/o Nand Kishor. As per the objections filed by the petitioner and his mother who filed their objections u/s-5A of the Act separately, the petitioner's share is measuring 960 square yards, whereas, his mother's share is measuring 2192 square yards. However, both of them have demanded the release of same constructed area measuring 46' x 56' i.e. 273.7 square yards only. Whereas, the spot survey conducted by the officials of the answering respondents found 'A' & 'B' class construction existing on total land measuring 363 square yards (i.e. 55' x 33' 'A' class and 44' x 33' 'B' class) and the answering respondents have released C.M. No. 15310 of 2010 and CWP No. 18065 of 2009 and another connected case 5 more than the constructed area i.e. 393.25 square yards (13 Marlas) in his mother's name. Both the petitioner and his mother can share the released constructed area at their own level as both of them are co-owners of the land in dispute. Rest of the land is either vacant or having less than 'C' class construction without any roof, which cannot be released. After taking the decision, the Govt. ordered for the declaration u/s-6 of the Act for rest of the land. The declaration u/s-6 of the Act made vide No. LAC (H()-2008-NTLA/426 dated 21.08.2008 accordingly."
The documents on record clearly indicate that the petitioners, in both the cases, are co-sharers and are living in one house. So far as second portion, which has been termed as mother's residence, it appears that some rooms have been constructed only with a view to save it from land acquisition. The authorities have already exempted more than the constructed area.
In view of the above, we feel that no case is made out for interference by this Court.
Both the writ petitions are dismissed.
( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE October 27, 2010 pj C.M. No. 15310 of 2010 and CWP No. 18065 of 2009 and another connected case 6