Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Sant Ram Suri And Sons & Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 30 September, 2014
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta, Anupinder Singh Grewal
CWP No.20395 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.20395 of 2014
Date of decision: 30.09.2014
M/s Sant Ram Suri & sons and another ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
***
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?
*** Present: Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioners.
***** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J The petitioner No.1 is stated to be a partnership firm involved in the business of Petrol and Diesel Distribution from their petrol pump in District Sonepat.
The petitioner is seeking clearance/NOC pertaining to the status of its land to enable it to expand its business by installing CNG gas station. The land is also stated to have been acquired vide notification dated 09.11.1992 under Section ANJU 2014.10.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.20395 of 2014 -2- 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award was also passed in 2005. The petitioner has further stated that the earlier owners of the land purchased by the petitioner did not receive any compensation nor was the possession taken by the respondents. The petitioners had earlier approached this Hon'ble Court by preferring CWP No.3278 of 2014 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.01.2014 with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision on the claim put forth by the petitioners. Vide order dated 22.08.2014 (Annexure P-24) Secretary-cum-Director General, Urban Estates Department, Haryana has declined the claim of the petitioners.
We have examined the matter and are of the considered view that there is no merit in the present petition.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 22.08.2014 reveals that the claim of the petitioner was duly considered and has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner/ landowner did not file objections under Section 5A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the time of acquisition. The ownership of the land changed hand after the passing of award on 05.11.1995. It is further stated that the provisional 'No Objection Certificate' dated 26.02.2002 (Annexure P-8) issued by District Magistrate, Sonepat clearly imposes a condition that the land is to be got released from HUDA and it is evident that ANJU 2014.10.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.20395 of 2014 -3- the petitioner has installed the retail outlet on the claimed land after the pronouncement of the award in the year 1995 with knowledge of the fact that the land was already acquired. He was required to first secure release of land and then proceed. Release of the land in this case is not possible since even the ownership has changed after the award. It is further stated that the claim of the petitioner is not covered under the policy dated 24.01.2011.
Therefore, this case does not warrant any interference by us under Article 226 of the Constitution as the impugned order cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or unreasonable. The petitioner had purchased the land with open eyes after the pronouncement of award and hence no indulgence can be shown to him.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE September 30, 2014 anju ANJU 2014.10.07 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document