Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir Singh And Another vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 24 February, 2011
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Garg
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12376 OF 2010(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: February 24, 2011.
Parties Name
Satbir Singh and another
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Haryana and others
...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv., with Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma,
Advocate, for the petitioners.
Ms. Palika Monga, D.A.G., Haryana,
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Adv., for Mr. Arun Walia,
Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
Jasbir Singh, J. (oral)
JUDGMENT
CM No. 1449 of 2011:
CM application is allowed and objections are taken on record. CWP No. 12376 of 2010:
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification issued on August 23, 2007, (P2) under Section 4 of the Land CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12376 OF 2010(O&M) -2- Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) proposing to acquire a vast track of land including 16 Kanals 3 Marlas of land, owned by the petitioners. Further challenge has been laid to a notification issued on August 21, 2008, under Section 6 of the Act, declaring intention of the respondents to acquire the land in question.
When notice of motion was issued on July 16, 2010, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court:
"Counsel for the petitioners states that houses of the petitioners are being acquired, whereas vacant land of others has been released from acquisition. To say so, reference has been made to photographs Annexure P-6. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are in possession of the property, in dispute." To show existence of the building, a reference was made to the photographs on record. In response to the notice, reply has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, para No. 3 of which reads thus:
"3. The petitioners and other interested persons, who filed objections u/S 5-A of the Act within prescribed period of limitation, were properly heard. After giving full opportunity of hearing, the then Land Acquisition Collector made a report on individual objections and sent the report with recommendations to the Government for final decision. Almost all the constructed areas have been left from the acquisition except those existed in the green belt area or the Sector roads.
The land in dispute of the petitioners was having construction CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12376 OF 2010(O&M) -3- of 'C' class on small portion and fell in Green Belt and Sector Road, hence cannot be released. After taking the decision, the Government ordered for the declaration u/S 6 of the Act for rest of the land. The declaration u/S 6 of the Act was made vide No. LAC (H)-2008-NTLA/429 dated 21.8.2008 accordingly. In furtherance of the notifications referred above, the Award No. 5 dated 19.08.2010 has already been announced vide which the land of the petitioner has been acquired (Copy of the Aks Sijra is attached as Annexure R-1)."
It is further stated that the petitioners, earlier also filed Civil Writ Petition No. 10746 of 2010, which was withdrawn and as such this writ petition is not maintainable.
Dispute herein remains only with regard to Khasra Nos. 40//25/1 and 25/2 total measuring 8 Kanals. So far as rest of the land is concerned, by moving an application, which was allowed vide order dated November 22, 2010, the petitioners have withdrawn the compensation. Averments made by the respondents that the land in the above said Khasra numbers falls within the alignment of Green Belt and a Road was objected to by counsel for the petitioners. Taking note of the same, following order was passed on November 22, 2010:
"In the written statement filed, it is only stated that construction raised by the petitioners falls in the green belt. No further detail has been given.
The above fact has vehemently been controverted by counsel CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12376 OF 2010(O&M) -4- for the petitioners, who states that the claim of the petitioners is only with regard to a small portion of land, in which construction exists falling in Rect. No. 40//25/1, 25/2 (measuring 2 Kanals).
Respondent No. 3 is directed to effect measurement at the spot, in the presence of the petitioners on 02.12.2010, to verify as to whether the building of the petitioners falls in the green belt or not.
Report of the demarcation be submitted in Court along with a copy of the site plan showing situation at the spot before the date fixed."
In response thereto, demarcation was done at the spot. Relevant portion of the report dated December 14, 2010, reads thus:
"As per the demarcation of Khasra No. 40//25/1 & 25/2, there were three constructed structures in Khasra No. 40//25/1 and one structure in Khasra No. 40//25/2, which are marked in the attached Shijra Plan. At Sr. No. 1, there was a structure of 22' x 28', at Sr. No. 2, there was a structure of 160'x31', at Sr. No. 3, structure of 36'x14' in Khasra No. 40//25/1 and at Sr. No. 4, there was a structure of 4' x 28' in Khasra No. 40//25/2, which have been marked in Shijra Plan with red colour and has been mentioned on it. As per the Shijra Plan, these structures in Khasra No. 40//25/1 & 25/2 falls in 60 meter wide Green Belt. The Shijra Plan is signed by Draftsman, J.E. Office of District CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12376 OF 2010(O&M) -5- Town Planner, Jind and DTP Jind himself along with Jai Narain Patwari and Dhoop Singh Naib Tehsildar of this office. Memo No. 3751 DTP(I) dated 13..12.2010 was also issued by DTP Jind regarding the construction in Khasra No. 40//25/1 & 25/2 and it also shows that the construction falls in 60 meter wide Green Belt (the copies of Shijra Plan, letter from DTP Jind office along with demarcation report by Dhoop Singh Naib Tehsildar which is signed by the petitioners are attached)."
The petitioners have filed objection to the above said report, wherein nothing has been shown to falsify the facts, mentioned in the report. Rather it has been admitted that the land falling in Khasra No. 40//25/2 (2 Kanals) was not made subject matter of acquisition at all. If that is so, to that extent for exemption of that portion of the land, prayer was wrongly made in this writ petition. Once it has come on record that the land in dispute is a part of notified Green Belt and a Road, no benefit can be granted to the petitioners. Dismissed.
( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge February 24 , 2011.
DKC