Punjab-Haryana High Court
Purshotam Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 July, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.1716 of 2007(O&M)
Date of Decision : July 22, 2013
Purshotam Sharma .....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : Mr.R.D.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Patter, Senior DAG, Haryana.
---
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)
CM No.4325 of 2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, the order dated 12.2.2007 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number and file and taken up for hearing.
CM stands disposed of.
CWP No.1716 of 2007.
The petitioner seeks quashing of the notifications dated 27.1.2003 (Annexure P-1) and 23.1.2004 (Annexure P-3) issued under Sections 4 & 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in relation to the acquisition of his land falling within the revenue estate of village Dhaliawas, Tehsil and District Rewari.
The above-stated land has been acquired for the Kumar Mohinder 2013.08.07 13:03 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.1716 of 2007 [2] purpose of residential and commercial sectors 18, 19 and 20 part and Sector 17 part at Urban Estate, Rewari.
Three folds submissions are made on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, it is urged that the entire acquired land surrounding his plot, as depicted in green colour in the site plan (Annexure P-4), has already been released from acquisition, but no such relied has been granted to him in a totally hostile and discriminatory manner; (ii) After the release of acquired land around the petitioner's plot, no 'public purpose' can possibly be achieved by retaining a small piece of his land, and (iii) the petitioner has constructed a residential house on the acquired plot which is the only social shelter for him and his family. Photographs of the house are also placed on record.
The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that only a temporary structure was found to have been constructed by the petitioner at the time of survey.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Keeping in view the factual but categoric plea taken by the petitioner that the acquired land surrounding his plot has already been released or that there exists a structure raised before Section 4 notification, we are of the view that the petitioner's claim for the release of his property from acquisition, requires objective and dispassionate consideration by the Authorities, more so when the Government own policy exempts such like properties from acquisition, we may also refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patasi Devi versus State of Haryana and others (2012) 9 SCC 503. It also appears that no 'public purpose' can be achieved by retaining Kumar Mohinder 2013.08.07 13:03 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.1716 of 2007 [3] a small piece of land when substantial part of acquired land has been left out. We, therefore, without expressing any final views on merits of the petitioner's claim, dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to re-consider the matter in the light of the above-noticed facts and law and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order, preferably after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Till the speaking order is passed, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
July 22, 2013 (SURINDER GUPTA)
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2013.08.07 13:03
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh