Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parties Name vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 July, 2009
Author: Jasbir Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14976 OF 2003 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: July 17, 2009.
Parties Name
Ram Kumar alias Suresh Kumar
..PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Punia,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocate, for respondents No. 2, 3 and 5.
Mr. Ashish Chopra, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. Mr. R.S.Mittal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate, for respondent No. 10.
Mr. Sanjeev Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 11. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash order dated May 6, 2003 (P-14), vide which five plots bearing No. 1517 to 1521 were allotted to respondents No. 6 to 10 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14976 OF 2003 -2- respectively. It is further prayer of the petitioner that direction be issued to the official respondents to release land measuring 3750 square yards, falling in Khasra No. 2 in village Faridabad, which was his ownership before acquisition in the year 1973.
It is case of the petitioner that the plots were allotted to respondents No. 6 to 10 only because they are influential persons and have connection in the administration. Upon notice, reply has been filed by respondent No. 7, wherein it has been stated as under:
"That , as stated above, the plot was allotted to the answering respondent, amongst others, under the discretionary quota of Chief Minister. It is pertinent to mention that the said allotments were challenged by one Shri Anil Sabharwal by preferring Civil Writ Petition No. 5851 of 1996 before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court vide judgment dated March 21, 1997, inter alia held that the allotments made under the discretionary quota shall remain unaffected in case of those allottees and their bonafide purchasers who have already raised construction or who have started construction of houses and buildings as per the plans sanctioned by HUDA before the date of publication of the notice of the said petition. It was inter alia ordered that the case of those covered under exception clause, as mentioned above, shall be referred to the committee along with the entire record and final decision be taken on the recommendations of the committee. Accordingly, a committee was constituted in pursuance to the judgment of this Hon'ble Court to review the allotments made under the discretionary CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14976 OF 2003 -3- quota. The case of the answering respondent along with other similar cases, which were referred to the Committee, were examined by the Committee and found the allotment to be in order. The said decision was conveyed to the answering respondent vide letter No. 948 dated October 23, 1998. Further, the Estate Officer also intimated the answering respondent vide letter No. 1483 dated November 26, 1998 that the allotment of the plot stands regularized. Be that as it may, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in Harsh Dhingra versus State of Haryana and others along with others reported as (2001) 9 SCC 551, while observing that the decision of the High Court in S.R.Dass case had held the field for nearly a decade and the Government, HUDA and the parties to whom the allotments have been made have acted upon and adjusted their affairs in terms of the said decision, to disturb that state of affairs on the basis that now certain other rigorous principles are declared to be applied in Anil Sabharwal case would be setting the rules of the game after the game is over, by which several parties have altered their position to their disadvantage, has held and declared that the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Anil Sabharwal Versus State of Haryana and others reported as (1997) 2 PLR 7 shall be effective from April 23, 1996. Thus since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Anil Sabharwal's case (supra) effective from a prospective date, i.e., April 23, 1996, the allotment of the answering respondent, in any case, is legal and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14976 OF 2003 -4- valid as the allotment made to him is prior to the cut off date. The sequence of events shows that even the possession in respect thereof, sanctioning of the building plans and commencement of construction is also prior to the cut off date. In view of the above also, the prayer made by the petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be rejected."
It has specifically been stated that plots were validly allotted to the private respondents, out of the discretionary quota and allotment made to them has been upheld. On the last date of hearing, i.e., July 6, 2009, following order was passed by this Court:
"Mr. Batra is directed to put on record an affidavit of a responsible officer stating whether after issuance of the final notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and or after passing of the award regarding this acquisition, land of any right holder was released from acquisition or not. Let the affidavit be filed on or before July 17, 2009, to which date the case is adjourned."
In response to the above said order, affidavit of Shri Vikas Yadav, Additional Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, Panchkula, has been filed. Para 2 of the same reads thus:
"That is humbly submitted that on the last date of hearing on 6th July, 2009, the Hon'ble Court desired to know that in whose favour the land has been released pertaining to this acquisition. It is humbly submitted that land measuring 147.28 acres was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14976 OF 2003 -5- notified under section 4 of the Act and land measuring 142.03 was notified under Section 6 of the Act. The land which was notified under Section 6 was notified through three different notifications. The land measuring 4.75 Acres was notified vide notification No. NTLA-291 dated 4th January, 1974. The land measuring 100.06 acres was notified vide notification No. 292 dated 4th January, 1974 and the land 37.22 Acres was notified vide notification No. 5633 dated 1-10-1976. It is humbly submitted that the land measuring 2.50 Acres falling under Khasra No. 1 min, 1876/1 min and 4 min was excluded from the acquisition proceedings after hearing the objections under Section 5A of the Act in favour of Rajender Singh & others. The land measuring 2.75 acres under khasra No. 2071/7 min, 45 min and 50 min was never notified under Section 6 of the Act. It is further submitted that the land falling under Khasra No. 43-44 measuring 2.78 Acres was released in favour of Smt. Sita Wanti in pursuance to the order dated 23.8.1996 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1983. True copy of the orders of the Apex Court is attached at Annexure R-III."
It is also not in dispute that the acquisition of land of the petitioner has become final. Earlier also, the petitioner filed CWP No. 10366 of 1997, which was disposed of on July 23, 1997. In compliance to the order, referrred to above, plot bearing No. 1522-P was allotted to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not accept that plot. Be that as it CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14976 OF 2003 -6- may, in view of fact that acquisition of the land in question has become final more than three decades ago, it is not open to the petitioner to lay challenge to the same at this stage. The petitioner has failed to make out any case, on the basis of which, directions as prayed in this writ petition can be issued in his favour. In fact, acquisition proceedings were started in the year 1973. Notice under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in the year 1976 and award was passed in the year 1978 and possession was taken before 1980. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed.
July 17, 2009 ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge