Punjab-Haryana High Court
Wazir Singh Hooda And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 August, 2009
Author: J.S. Khehar
Bench: J.S. Khehar
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 10803 of 2008
Date of Decision: August 25, 2009
Wazir Singh Hooda and another
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others.
... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand.
Present : Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,
for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3.
J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral)
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners have impugned the action of the respondents in acquiring their land. The process of acquisition of the land in question commenced with the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 15.12.2006. Although, some persons, whose land was acquired, filed objections under Section 5A of the Act, it is not a matter of dispute, that the petitioners did not file any objections. The process of acquisition came to be finalized by the respondents with the issuance of a declaration on 18.10.2007 under Section 6 of the Act. It has also been brought to our notice, that consequent upon the issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Act, notices were issued to the petitioners under Section 9, and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate CWP No. 10803 of 2008 2 Department, Rohtak, announced the award under Section 11 of the Act on 14.03.2008.
The instant writ petition came to be filed on 11.06.2008 i.e. subsequent to the date when the Land Acquisition Collector announced the award under Section 11 of the Act. In the instant view of the matter, the present writ petition so as to assail the action of the respondents in acquiring their land was clearly not maintainable, and ought to have been dismissed without any further enquiry.
Despite the factual/legal position noticed in the foregoing paragraphs, the instant writ petition came to be entertained on account of two facts. Firstly, it was alleged that there was a deviation in the original determination at the hands of the respondents for the pointed benefit of a builder, and that such determination, wherein land is being acquired for the public purpose but is put to use for the benefit of a private party at the cost of the petitioners.
The second contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners was, that the original plan depicting the nature of development, including the construction of a road dividing Sectors 7 and 37 in the city of Rohtak, had been altered, and this alteration, adversely affected the rights of the petitioners. It is submitted, that the instant alteration came to the notice of the petitioners only after they obtained information relating to the process of acquisition under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the assertions made at the hands of the petitioners were categorically and emphatically denied. It is in these circumstances, and in order to ascertain the exact ground realities, that we require learned counsel for the CWP No. 10803 of 2008 3 respondents to obtain instructions. Learned counsel for the respondents sought instructions from Sh. Y.M. Mansur, Senior Town Planner, Rohtak and Sh. T.D. Chopra, Executive Engineer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Division No.1, Rohtak. The aforestated officers presented to us, for our perusal, a site plan which we have taken on record and marked as Annexure `A'. The aforesaid site plan bears the signatures of S/Sh. Y.M. Mansur and T.D. Chopra.
According to the learned counsel for the respondents, as per the instructions obtained by her from the officers referred to hereinabove, Annexure `A' depicts the boundaries of the proposed acquired land, in terms of the acquisition notices issued under Section 4 of the Act. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent, that the road between Sectors 7 and 37 has been constructed within the boundaries of the proposed acquired land, and in terms of the draft development plan published on 08.09.2006. She further states that the road in question will be constructed in terms of the draft development plan. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the construction of the said road has been stalled on account of the injunction granted by this Court in the present case.
On the site plan Annexure `A', some portion has been marked in orange colour. Learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, states that the land marked in orange colour was owned by the builder referred to in the pleadings of the petitioners. It is submitted, that the portion of the land of the builder falling within the proposed acquired land, has been acquired and has not been released. It is pointed out, that the land CWP No. 10803 of 2008 4 of the builder falling outside has nothing to do with the present controversy. It is, therefore, submitted that no favour has been shown to anyone.
Learned counsel for the respondents has also handed over to us another site plan, which is taken on record and marked as Annexure `B'. The aforesaid site plan also bears the signatures of the officers present in Court so as to affirm the authenticity of the same. Based on Annexure `B', it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that there is no alteration in the contiguity of the road to be constructed between Sectors 7 and 37, nor is there any deviation in the determination of the respondents from the draft development plan dated 08.09.2006. So far as the road falling between Sectors 6 and 36A is concerned, it is submitted that the same is also as per the draft development plan dated 08.09.2006. However, during the course of construction thereof, certain deviations had to be made on the basis of ground realities. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the site plan (Annexure `B') depicts, that the roads dividing Sector 6 and 36-A, as also Sectors 7 and 37 are in a straight line without there being any deviation on account of favour to any land owner.
In view of the factual position noticed hereinabove based on Annexures `A' and `B', we are satisfied, that the issues canvassed on behalf of the petitioners are misconceived, and not sustainable in law so as to assail the process of acquisition at the hands of the respondents.
In view of the above, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
( J.S. Khehar )
Judge
August 25, 2009 ( S.D. Anand )
vkd Judge