Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nasib Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 October, 2012
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CWP No. 12433 of 2011
Nasib Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
2. CWP No. 12613 of 2011
Kulwant Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
3. CWP No. 12619 of 2011
Surinder Kaur Bajwa
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
4.. CWP No. 12960 of 2011
Rajinder Pal Goyal
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -2-
5. CWP No. 12795 of 2011
Sukhwant Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
6. CWP No. 12962 of 2011
Surat Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
7. CWP No. 13135 of 2011
Gurnam Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
8. CWP No. 13973 of 2011
Surinder Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -3-
9. CWP No. 13683 of 2011
Rajinder Kaur
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
10. CWP No. 16957 of 2011
Shingara Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
11. CWP No. 16958 of 2011
Gurdial
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
12. CWP No. 16959 of 2011
Haripankaj
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -4-
13. CWP No. 8278 of 2011
Lakhmir Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
14. CWP No. 13848 of 2011
Gurdev Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
15. CWP No. 14172 of 2011
Surinder Kaur Bajwa
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
16. CWP No. 14484 of 2011
Naresh Kumaar and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -5-
17. CWP No. 11741 of 2011
PUDA (now GMADA)
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... Respondents
18. CWP No. 1154 of 2011
Lakhwinder Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
19. CWP No. 5572 of 2009
Ranjit Kaur
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
20. CWP No. 6517 of 2009
Balwant Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -6-
21. CWP No. 3197 of 2009
Rajinder Pal Goyal and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
22. CWP No. 12245 of 2009
Amarjit Singh and another
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
23. CWP No. 12258 of 2009
Malkiat Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
24. CWP No. 16448 of 2009
Gurdial Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -7-
25. CWP No. 2768 of 2010 (O&M)
Harnek Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
26. CWP No. 22705 of 2010
Sukhwinder Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
27. CWP No. 1978 of 2012
Shama Wati
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
28. CWP No. 3230 of 2012
Sewaji @ Shivaji and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -8-
29. CWP No. 1937 of 2012
Harnek Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
Date of decision: 17.10.2012
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
PRESENT: Mr. Yashwinder Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate,
Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate,
Mr. Harnek Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CWP No. 12619 of 2011) and
for respondent No. 2 (in CWP No. 11741 of 2010).
Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CWP No. 11741 of 2011) and
for respondent No. 2 (in CWP Nos. 12245 & 12258 of 2009).
Mr. DV Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Advocate,
Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vikram Vir Sharda, Advocate,
for GMADA.
Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2, 3, & 4 (in CWP No. 12619 of 2011).
Mr. NPS Mann, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
****
CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -9-
SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)
This order of ours shall dispose of 29 writ petitions bearing Nos. 12433, 12613, 12619, 12960, 12795, 12962, 13135, 13973, 13683, 16957, 16958, 16959, 13848, 14172, 8278, 14484, 11741 and 1154 of 2011; 5572, 6517, 3197, 12245, 12258 and 16448 of 2009; 22705, 2768 of 2010 and 1937, 1978 as also 3230 of 2012 as the issues raised in these cases are inter-linked and are common in nature. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 12433 of 2011.
The petitioner in this case claims himself to be an original resident and owner of a piece of land measuring 8 marlas within in the revenue estate of village Lambian, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali. The petitioner had allegedly constructed a residential house as well as commercial shops on the said land consisting of six rooms, kitchen and shops etc. The afore-stated land along with structure was acquired by the Punjab Government for development of Urban Estate, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The Award was announced on 22.2.1995, followed by a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the petitioner on 13.4.1995 for enhancement of compensation. The acquired land was finally utilized to set up Sector-69 in Phase-X, Mohali. The petitioner relies upon a survey report (Annexure P-2) suggesting that he was owner in possession of land measuring 8 marlas and there were various rooms etc. constructed on that piece of land. The petitioner also relies upon the decision taken in a meeting presided over by the Minister In-charge for Housing and Urban Development Minister-cum-Chairperson, PUDA on CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -10- 1.6.2001 (Annexure P-3) wherein it was decided to grant certain benefits to the oustees of village Lambian whose lands were acquired for development of Urban Estate Mohali. The above-stated decision contemplates rehabilitation of the original residents/land owners of village Lambian by providing them residential, commercial or institutional sites subject to the conditions contained therein.
In addition, the petitioners also relies upon an Oustees Policy of the year 1994 under which the land owners whose lands are acquired are entitled to some benefits.
Respondents No. 2 and 3-GMADA has filed its reply- affidavit wherein the facts regarding acquisition of the petitioner's land are broadly admitted. It has averred that a residential plot has been allotted to the petitioner but the letter of intent issued for a commercial site also, was statedly issued wrongly as the petitioner is not entitled to both the benefits, namely, the residential plot as well as the commercial site.
The aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court. Somewhat similar or related issues have arisen for consideration in the connected writ petitions also.
In our considered view, these cases give rise to the following (may be more) questions for adjudication:-
(1) Whether the petitioner(s) was/were the original residents of village Lambian?
(2) Whether the petitioner(s) was/were the original owner(s) of the land in village Lambian? CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -11- (3) Whether the said land or any part thereof was acquired by the Punjab Government to set up the Urban Estate, Mohali?
(4) Whether the subject land was being utilized for residential, commercial or mix use purposes by the owner(s) before it was acquired?
(5) Whether the owner(s) of the acquired land, namely, the oustees are entitled to one plot, whether residential or commercial or both under the Special Rehabilitation Policy framed for village Lambian?
(6) Whether the tenant(s) or un-authorized occupant(s) who have built premises on the land of village Lambian before its acquisition and/or were in possession for a sufficient long period, may be generation to generation, are also entitled to any benefit under the policies and if so, the nature of such benefit?
(7) Whether the petitioner(s) have been discriminated in the matter of grant of benefits under the Special Rehabilitation Police framed for village Lambian? (8) Whether the choice to select residential or commercial property, if the owner is found entitled to allotment of one property only, should vest in the owner or in the Authority?
(9) Whether a person who bought land for consideration CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -12- in village Lambian before issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and is a bona fide purchaser, is entitled to be treated at par with original owner?
We, however, hasten to add that during the course of deciding these questions some more issues may arise for consideration and those additional issues also need to be decided in the same manner.
Learned counsel for the parties as well as the Chief Administrator, GMADA, who is present in Court are ad idem that since answers to the above-mentioned questions or the additional questions if any, would necessitate a deep reference to the revenue records, survey reports and other official documents, it would in the interest of justice that a Committee headed by a fairly senior Judicial Officer with vast experience, who is duly assisted by some Senior Revenue Officer as well as the Chief Administrator, GMADA, be constituted.
We full endorse the suggestion given by counsel for the parties.
We accordingly constitute a Committee comprising (i) the Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer to Government of Punjab (Chairman); (ii) Chief Administrator, GMADA (Member) and (iii) the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), SAS Nagar, Mohali (Member) to decide the questions framed above or any additional issue that may arise in the process. The Chief Administrator, GMADA, fairly agrees that the records of all the cases (subject matter of these writ petitions) shall be placed before the Committee by GMADA along with CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -13- necessary records. The petitioner(s) shall be at liberty to supplement their claims by producing additional documents or affidavits if so, required.
Similarly, the GMADA shall also be at liberty to produce additional records in their custody or otherwise.
We shall appreciate if the Committee decides the above- stated issues expeditiously or preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The Committee shall decide each claim by passing a reasoned order. The Committee shall provide audience to the Advocates for the parties. The secretarial assistance if any, shall be provided by GMADA.
The interim orders passed by this Court in all these cases shall continue to operate till the matter is decided by the Committee and wherever the Committee rejects the owner's claim, such interim order shall continue to operate for another one month to enable such owner to approach the appropriate forum, if so, advised.
The parties shall also be at liberty to move appropriate applications in the cases which are not listed today though pertain to the Special Rehabilitation Policy of village Lambian, for their placement before the above-stated Committee.
The first date of hearing before the Committee shall be on 9.11.2012 at 3.00 p.m. CWP No. 12433 of 2011 -14- For the reasons afore-sated, all the writ petitions stands disposed of.
Dasti.
( SURYA KANT )
JUDGE
October 17, 2012 ( R.P. NAGRATH )
rishu JUDGE