Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunita Malik & Another vs State Of Haryana & Others on 11 November, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 3809 of 2008
Date of Decision : 11.11.2013
Sunita Malik & another
.......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & others
...... Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present : Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate,
Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate,
Mr. Sumeet Sheokand, Advocate for
Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate,
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate,
Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate
for HUDA.
****
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 86 cases i.e. CWP Nos. 3809, 3824, 5620, 6257, 6442, 7080, 7195, 7441, 7463, 7464, 7502, 7510, 7660, 7719, 7724, 7736, 7774, 7780, 7789, 7817, 7819, 7822, 7823, Satyawan 7914, 7951, 7933, 7960, 8029, 8161, 8269, 8302, 8499, 8512, 8641, 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 3809 of 2008 2 8897, 9387, 9494, 9800, 10036, 10102, 10118, 10459, 10498, 10500, 10501, 10502, 10503, 10504, 10510, 10558, 10573, 10576, 10577, 10688, 10689, 10690, 10691, 10747, 10790, 10791, 10793, 10902, 10904, 11005, 11007, 11008, 11009, 11565, 11576, 11579, 11580, 11581, 11006, 11614, 12368, 12435, 12452, 12453, 12481, 17698, 18580 of 2008 and 7740 & 7951 of 2009, and 9979, 9980 & 10005 of 2012, wherein the notifications dated 15.6.2006 and 14.6.2007 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby the residential houses/buildings/ structures along with open space owned by the petitioners have been acquired for the purpose of development and utilization as residential and commercial Sector 12, Palwal and Transport Nagar, Sector 21, Palwal.
2. For brevity, facts are being extracted from CWP No. 3809 of 2008.
3. One of the principal grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition was that the small pieces of land converted as plots owned by them have already been utilised for residential/ allied purposes, namely, the same purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired, hence, no purpose would be served. In view of the public policy dated 26.10.2007, the structures/houses which were found in existence at the time of issuance of Section 4 Notification are liable to be released from acquisition along with proportionate open space.
4. The petitioners further contended that a complete Satyawan 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 3809 of 2008 3 residential colony has been set up by them and acquisition thereof would be detrimental to public interest instead of serving any public purpose. In this back drop, vide order dated 27.09.2013, we directed the official respondents to re-survey the acquired area and consider the desirability of releasing the structures/residential houses/plots in accordance with the above stated Government policy.
5. It would be suffice to state that the policy dated 26.10.2007 contemplates as follows :-
"The Government has framed a comprehensive policy as detailed below:-
1) No request will be considered after one year of award. Only those requests will be considered by the Government where objections under Section 5-A were filed.
2) Any request or application where structures have been constructed will only be considered for the release under Section 48 (1) provided the structure exists prior to section 4 and is inhabited.
3) Any factory or commercial establishment which existed prior to Section 4 will be considered for release.
4) Any religious institution or any building owned by community will also be considered for release.
5) xx xx xx xx
6) xx xx xx xx"
(emphasis applied)
6. The afore-stated policy has been modified on 24.1.2011 Satyawan 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 3809 of 2008 4 but the modified version has no direct bearing on the point in issue.
7. The above stated policy has been held to be enforceable by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patasi Devi versus State of Haryana and others, (2012) 9 SCC 503, relevant extract of which reads as follow:-
"19. Before this Court it has been pleaded that on the date of issuance of preliminary notification the appellant's land was vacant, but, this statement cannot be relied upon for denying relief to her because no such averment was made in the counter- affidavit filed before the High Court. The policy framed by the Government of Haryana clearly stipulates release of the land on which construction had been raised prior to issuance of Section 4 notification. The appellant's case is covered by that policy. Therefore, her land ought to have been released as was done in the case of M/s Sharad Farm and Holdings (P) Ltd......"
(emphasis applied)
8. It may also be relevant at this stage to mention that even the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Palwal vide letter dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) had informed the Land Acquisition Collector that there exists residential houses over 80% of the khasra numbers sought to be acquired and all the basic amenities like roads, sewerage, water supply, electricity supply have been provided to the residents of these houses by the Government Departments/Agencies. Satyawan
9. On a reconsideration of the matter in the light of the 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 3809 of 2008 5 above mentioned facts and the directions issued by this Court on 27.09.2013, learned Sr. DAG, Haryana, on instructions from officers i.e. Mr. Rajinder Gahlot, Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad and Mr. Ravi Sihag, District Town Planner, Palwal, states that keeping in view the large scale constructions made on the acquired land, the policy dated 26.10.2007 shall be given effect and in terms thereof all the houses/buildings/structures along with proportionate open space shall be recommended to be released from acquisition.
10. We direct the State Government that wherever there exists a structure before issue of Section 4 notification the area under such structure along with open proportionate area shall be released in consonance with the above mentioned policy. We further direct if the left out land of the petitioners cannot be utilised for any bona-fide public purpose in that event the desirability of releasing such land also be considered save in a case where it is required for a public utility like Sector road, sewerage, green belt etc. while the Land Acquisition Collector and the District Town Planner shall submit their report to the State Government within two months, appropriate release order shall be passed by the State Government within two months thereafter. Till then the parties shall continue to maintain status quo. We further clarify that if there arises any dispute with regard to the tittle, identity of khasra numbers or identity of the owner/interested person of a property, the petitioners shall fully assist the Land Acquisition Satyawan 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 3809 of 2008 6 Collector and the District Town Planner and shall provide the necessary documents for verification.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE (SURINDER GUPTA) JUDGE
11.11.2013 'Satyawan' Satyawan 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh