Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 13 September, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-7855-2017
(1) Raj Kumar & others ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
(2) CWP No.7980 of 2017
Mahender and others ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
(3) CWP No.8544 of 2017
Jeet Ram ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
(4) CWP No.10779 of 2017
Braham Pal and others ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
Reserved on: 27.08.2024
Pronounced on: 13.09.2024
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana &
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with
Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Advocate
for the respondent-HSVP.
1 of 13
::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:50 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB
CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
1. The present judgment shall dispose of the above referred four writ petitions, since notification in question and village from which the land had been acquired is common.
2. The petitioners primarily seek the release of their houses under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short '2013 Act') being residents of village Tigra, District Gurugram. The notification in question under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short '1894 Act') was issued on 24.08.2000 and under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 22.08.2001. The Award came to be passed on 21.07.2003. It is not disputed that the writ petitioners have never challenged the acquisition proceedings at any point of time and, therefore, the land stood vested with the State under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, after the passing of the Award on 21.07.2003. After a period of 14 years, apparently in view of the 2013 Act which came into force, the writ petition had been filed on the strength of the proceedings having lapsed, as per the pleadings. Apart from the said pleadings, the issue of discrimination has been also pleaded, whereby land of other landowners measuring 3 kanals 13 marlas of Rameshwar son of Sube Ram on 30.10.2006 and 2 kanals 10 marlas of Hazari on 21.02.2014 and of Tej Ram, Madan Lal, Daya Chand and Prithi sons of Nathu Ram of land falling in Khasra No.6-7 and land owned by Ajay Pal, Ajit and Bhim sons of Richpal falling in Khasra No.24/1 and land comprised in Khasra No.17 owned by Khacheru son of Birbal, had been exempted. Copy of release order has been attached as Annexure P-8.
Page 2 of 13
2 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions
3. Notice of motion was issued on 20.04.2017 in the present case and the following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither the compensation has been paid nor the possession of the acquired land has been taken.
Notice of motion.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
In the meantime, status-quo regarding constructed area shall be maintained.
As the issue raised in the present petition may have relevance with the matter pending consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 10742 of 2008- Yogesh Neema and others vs. State of M.P. and others, let the same be heard after the decision in the aforesaid case.
Pleadings, if any required to be completed, be completed. It is made clear that when the matter is listed for hearing after the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, no further time shall be granted to either of the parties to file any pleadings
4. Thus, it is apparent that the issue was only regarding the compensation not having been paid and possession of the acquired land had not been taken. Earlier the writ petition was allowed alongwith bunch of cases, lead case of which was CWP No.13425 of 2015 'Vijay Pal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on 29.01.2018, principally on the ground of lapsing under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and while giving opportunity to the State to acquire the land again. Though initially the said judgment had been stayed on 29.04.2019, but now the matters have been remanded by the Apex Court vide order dated 22.03.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.4533 of 2024 'State of Haryana Vs. Raj Kumar' for fresh consideration in the light of the judgment passed by the Constitutional Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & others, AIR 2020 SC Page 3 of 13 3 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions 1496 and all the contentions have been kept open to be raised by the parties, as may be legally permissible.
5. A perusal of the release order (Annexure P-8), on the basis of which discrimination has been alleged, would go on to show that the same was passed on 21.02.2014, only on account of the orders passed by this Court in CWP No.11572 of 2008 'Hazari Vs. State of Haryana and others' decided on 25.07.2013. Resultantly, out of 7 kanals 16 marlas of land falling in Khasra No.22/23/1, the authority had recommended release of 2 kanals 10 marals (1273 square meters) as shown in yellow colour in the layout plan and also noticed that there was some encroachments of another portion of Khasra No.22//23/2(0-4) and release was subject to the encroachment be removed and, therefore, the claim for parity as such cannot be put forth. Facts of CWP No.7855 of 2017
6. The claim of the writ petitioners is that they are owners of land measuring 22//3/1 (6-10) half share holder to the extent of 3 kanals 5 marlas and they are in physical possession of the property and had not received any compensation and had constructed residential house. The land is stated to be adjacent to the abadi deh of village Tigra. It has been pleaded that the respondent had already released vacant land 3 kanals 13 marlas of Rameshwar son of Sube Ram on 30.10.2006 and 2 kanals 10 marlas of Hazari on 21.02.2014. Releasing orders are annexed as Annexures P-7 and P-8.
7. The stand of the State is that land measuring 189.93 acres was sought to be acquired from village Tigra, District Gurugram, for the public purpose for development of the residential, commercial and institutional area Sector-57, Gurugram. The objections had been filed under Section 5A of the 1894 Act on the ground that there was construction of the residential house Page 4 of 13 4 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4, which had been issued on 24.08.2000. The recommendations regarding the release had been issued by the Land Acquisition Collector of the constructed portion falling in Khasra No.22//3/1(6-10). Three structures falling in Khasra No.22//3/1 (1-10) measuring 30.4.6 meters, 12.2x6.1 meters and 12.2x6.10 meters alongwith proportionate open space had been directed to be released, which fact has been concealed and not disclosed by the petitioners. On the announcement of the Award on 21.07.2003 regarding the area measuring 177.52 acres, the possession had been taken vide Rapat Roznamcha No.583 of even date, which had been duly entered in the revenue record. The landowners included the father of the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and grandfather of petitioner Nos.3 & 4 had filed Reference Petitions titled as Udmi Vs. State of Haryana and others bearing LAC No.178 of 2005, whereby the compensation was determined as Rs.888/- per square yard vide Award dated 23.02.2010(Annexure R-5). The compensation amount of Rs.73,06,74,448.60 qua the entire land had been tendered and was made available for disbursement to the persons interested. The petitioners deliberately did not come forward to receive the same and the amount is lying deposited in the separate account of the Land Acquisition Collector. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Indore Development Authority (supra) regarding this aspect. The usage of the land had been finalized vide Drawing dated 06.07.2012 (Annexure R-6) and it has been submitted that land in question is affecting the planning of 5 plots of 4 marlas category, 3 plots of 6 marlas category and 10 meter wide road and a park site of Sector-57, Gurugram. The issue of discrimination as such was rebutted, while placing reliance upon the judgment passed in Shanti Sports Club Vs. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705, keeping in view the Page 5 of 13 5 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions release had been ordered in the case of the petitioners also for the constructed portion. Resultantly, dismissal of the writ petition was prayed for. Facts of CWP No.7980 of 2017
8. The issue in the present case is also similar as in the above said case, since the land also pertaining to the same village Tigra and of the same notification. The petitioners are stated to be owners of land falling in Khewat No.7//16(8-0), 25(8-0), 8//21(6-10), 15//1/1(3-6), 16//5(8-0), 6(7-12), measuring 34 kanals 6 marals falling in the revenue estate of village Tigra, Tehsil & District Gurugram. The plea taken is that it was adjacent to the abadi deh of village Tigra. Earlier the petitioners had filed CWP No.11319 of 2015, which was disposed of on 28.05.2015 (Annexure P-6) with the directions to decide their representation within four months. Respondents had rejected the claim of the writ petitioners vide order dated 18.07.2016 (Annexure P-7). A perusal of the said order would go on to show that the structures/houses built up in Khasra No.8//21 min(0-15), 16//6 min(6 kanals 7 marlas) were left out under Section 5A of the 1894 Act and the compensation amount of the acquired land had not been taken by the applicants as per their share. The total land measuring 511.35 of other villages namely Wazirabad, Badshapur, Ghata, Ghasola, Nangli, Umerpur and Samaspur had been acquired for the purpose of residential plots, group housing, shopping centre and internal roads and possession had also been taken. The petitioners were 28 in number and had got the same interim order as passed in the first case dated 20.04.2017.
9. The stand of the State in its reply is also that the Land Acquisition Collector had recommended the release of the constructed portion falling in Khasra No.7//16, 6, 15/1/1, 15/2, 8//21 and similarly as per Annexure R-2 the Joint Site Inspection Committee conducted site survey and recommended that Page 6 of 13 6 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions land falling in Khasra No.16//6MM, 15/1, 15/2 being fully constructed be released and also recommended the release of one residential house with A Class construction falling in Khasra No.8//21 belonging to Jagat Singh, measuring 14.6 meters x 12.2 meters, which was existing prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. It was specifically pleaded that three structures had been released falling in Khasra No.8//21 min(0K- 15M), 16//5min (6-7), 15/1(1-17), 15/2(0-9). Thus, a chart was given to show that out of 39 kanals 13 marlas of land, 8 kanals 18 marlas had been released. The said chart reads as under:-
Sr. No. Khsara No. Area of Area Released Area Awarded Khasra No. K-M K-M K-M 1 7//16 8-0 - 8-0 2 7//25 8-0 - 8-0 3 8//21 6-10 0-15 5-15 4 15//1/1 3-6 - 3-6 5 16//5 8-0 - 8-0 6 16//6 7-12 6-7 1-5 7 16//15/1 1-7 1-7 -
8 16//15/2 0-9 0-9 -
9 29//15/1 5-7 - 5-7
Total 48-11 8-18 39-13
10. The petitioners filed Reference Petition bearing LAC No.15 of 2005 'Tej Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others', which was allowed on 23.02.2010 and the compensation had been determined @ Rs.888/-
per square yard, as in the case of others. It has been specifically mentioned that further RFA No.4928 of 2010 'Tej Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana and others' had been filed, whereby the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs.1216/- per square yard. The land in question was affecting the planning 10 plots of 4 Marla Category, 12 plots of 6 Marla Category, Shopping Centre, 18 meter wide road and 2 nos. of 10 meter wide roads, as per the layout plan annexed as Annexure R-7.
Page 7 of 13
7 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions Facts of CWP No.8544 of 2017
11. The claim in the present writ petition is that the petitioners are owners in possession of land comprised in Rectangle No.22//18(5-0) (share holder of 1.5 kanal) situated with the revenue estate of village Tigra. Interim order dated 26.04.2017 had been passed similarly in terms of the order passed in the first case dated 20.04.2017 and reproduced above in paragraph No.3.
12. The stand of the State in its reply is that the Land Acquisition Collector had recommended release of constructed portion falling in Khasra No.22//18(5-0), as per Annexure R-1, whereas the Joint Site Inspection Committee had conducted the site survey and gave the report (Annexure R-2) that construction was raised after the issuance of notification under Section 4. It was submitted that the reference petition filed by the petitioners bearing LAC No.198 of 2005 'Har Chandi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others' was allowed on 23.02.2010 and compensation was determined @ Rs.888/- per square yard. The compensation was further enhanced in RFA No.4932 of 2010 and market value had been fixed @ Rs.1216/- per square yard. The SLP filed by the petitioners bearing SLP(C)Diary No.16714 of 2020 'Dhannu and others Vs. State of Haryana and others' was dismissed by the Apex Court on 03.12.2021 (Annexure R-7). The land in question was affecting the planning of Community Centre site and 18 meters wide Sector Road of Sector-57, Gurugram. It was specifically pleaded that the other landowner, namely, Fannu Ram son of Umrao had received the compensation amount of Rs.2,03,225/- vide cheque on 17.11.2003 and Jag Ram alongwith Nand Ram sons of Umrao had received the compensation of Rs.2,03,225/-vide cheque on 19.11.2003, but the petitioner did not come forward to receive the Page 8 of 13 8 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions same and the amount was lying deposited in the separate account of the Land Acquisition Collector.
13. The photographs appended as Annexure P-8 would go on to show that there was no A Class construction, but labour quarters which had been raised apparently is the mode in Gurugram, keeping in view the litigation which has been prolonged over almost last 25 years. The site plan would go on to show that it is constructed in the form of labour quarters, taking advantage of the fact that they have continued in physical possession, in spite of compensation being deposited and having also agitated for their rights before the Reference Court.
Facts of CWP No.10779 of 2017
14. The present writ petition has been filed by four writ petitioners seeking the benefit of release of land falling in Khewat No.16//7(2-0), 16//4/2 (7-12). The petitioners are stated to have filed CWP No.13014 of 2014 which was disposed of on 03.07.2015 (Annexure P-7) with the directions to decide their representation. The necessary decision was taken on 29.06.2016 (Annexure P-9) after giving an opportunity to the petitioners. The authority noticed that the land falling in 16//4/2 min (4 kanals 12 marlas) had been left out of acquisition alongwith7 min (3 kanals 0 marla), due to some construction. The said fact has also been pleaded in paragraph no.2 of the writ petition itself.
15. As per the affidavit filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurugram, out of the compensation amount ofRs.73,06,74,448.60, Rs.52,15,17,447.60 (71.37%) had already been taken by the landowners and balance amount of Rs.20,91,57,001/-was pending disbursal. The State in its reply has also submitted that out of 10 kanals 15 marlas of land, 6 kanals 15 Page 9 of 13 9 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions marlas stood released and remaining 4 kanals as such were stated to be acquired. The landowners as such had also taken the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,59,13,274/- vide cheques dated 25.01.2011. The land in question is stated to be affecting the planning of shopping centre of Sector-57, Gugugram. Reasoning
16. The pleadings of the abovesaid cases would go on to show that the issue of discrimination was pleaded, which cannot find favour, as apparently release order had already been issued wherever there were constructed portions and similarly situated landowners had also been granted the benefit, as per Annexure P-8 appended in the first petition, after getting directions from this Court to consider their case. The petitioners have concealed this fact regarding the release in their favour to get interim orders to continue in possession for the last 7 years and have benefitted, as noticed by leasing out the land for labour quarters by raising temporary construction, which is the bane of Gurugram. The petitioners are in unauthorized occupation since the Award was passed in the year 2003 and only woke up when the 2013 Act came into force, taking the advantage of the flurry of the litigation which is flooding this Court and had got the interim order. On the other hand they have continued to pursue their remedy before the Reference Court to get the compensation enhanced and in CWP No.10779 of 2017 the amount of compensation has also been lifted by some of the co-sharers. The petitioners have chosen not to file replication and, thus, the reply of the State has not repelled. The issue of lapsing does not arise, in view of the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Indore Development Authority (supra), as the amount of compensation for all the villages had been deposited and 70% has been lifted by the landowners and possession having been taken by the State Page 10 of 13 10 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions by giving entry in the revenue record, they have no case for lapsing of the land, which is their specific case, for which they had approached this Court. The Apex Court in the said judgment has also held that the landowners who are pursuing their remedy to get the compensation enhanced, are also disentitled to claim the quashing of the acquisition proceedings. Reliance can be placed upon the observations made in Indore Development Authority (supra) regarding the consequences of pursuing the remedy for higher compensation in Court. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
"224. Thus, in our opinion, the word "paid" used in Section 24(2) does not include within its meaning the word "deposited", which has been used in the proviso to Section 24(2). Section 31 of the Act of 1894, deals with the deposit as envisaged in Section 31(2) on being 'prevented' from making the payment even if the amount has been deposited in the treasury under the Rules framed under Section 55 or under the Standing Orders, that would carry the interest as envisaged under Section 34, but acquisition would not lapse on such deposit being made in the treasury. In case amount has been tendered and the landowner has refused to receive it, it cannot be said that the liability arising from non-payment of the amount is that of lapse of acquisition. Interest would follow in such a case also due to non-deposit of the amount. Equally, when the landowner does not accept the amount, but seeks a reference for higher compensation, there can be no question of such individual stating that he was not paid the amount (he was determined to be entitled to by the collector). In such case, the landowner would be entitled to the compensation determined by the Reference Court."
17. A perusal of the reference filed under Section 18 would also go on to show that for the acquired land LAC 178 of 2005 had been filed by Udmi, father of the present petitioners in CWP-7855-2017. The Reference Court framed the specific issue whether there was any super-structure on the Page 11 of 13 11 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions acquired land. The issue framed by the Reference Court and the findings read as under:-
"Additional Issue framed in L.A.case nos.21 of 2005, 31 of 2005, 38 of 2005, 51 of 2006, 81 of 2005, 87 of 2005, 93 of 2005, 103 of 2005, 178 of 2005, 180 of 2005, 183 of 2005, 186 of 2005, 190 of 2005, 195 of 2005, 199 of 2005, 201 of 2005, 435 of 2004, 538 of 2004 and 554 of 2004:
The onus to prove this issue was on the petitioners that there existed any super structure on the acquired land. No evidence has been led on this issue nor this issue was pressed during the course of arguments. Therefore, the issue stands decided against the petitioners.
Additional issues framed in L.A. case No.10 of 2005, L.A. case No.82 of 2005, L.A. case No.93 of 2005, L.A. case No.178 of 2005, L.A. case NO.195 of 2004, L.A. case No.197 of 2004, L.A. case No.200 of 2005, L.A. case No.301 of 2006:
29. No evidence has been led on the additional issues, framed in the aforesaid L.A. case therefore, it is held that petitioners entitled to receive are held enhanced compensation as mentioned in statement No.19."
18. Therefore, the contention that there is any super-structure on it and the land is to be released on that account, cannot be taken into consideration, as the petitioners themselves have failed to lead any evidence to this effect. Similarly, in LAC No.15 of 2005, in Tej Ram's case, in CWP- 7980-2017, no such issue was got framed when the case was decided before the Reference Court. In Jeet Ram's case also in CWP No.8544 of 2017, who filed LAC No.198 of 2005 titled as Hari Chand & others, no such issue has been raised.
19. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the present writ petitions are only misuse of the process of law. In CWP Page 12 of 13 12 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:117743-DB CWP No.7855 of 2017 and other connected petitions No.23810 of 2017 'Jagdish Chand Vs. State of Haryana and others' pronounced today by separate judgement, we have already held that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M/s Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, the petitioners are not entitled for hearing even on merits, on account of concealing of facts. In such circumstances, we have no option but to dismiss the present writ petitions with the costs of Rs.25,000/- in each case, to be deposited with the Institute for Blind, Sector- 26, Chandigarh, within two months. In case, the amount is not deposited within two months, the Collector Gurugram shall initiate proceedings for recovery of the costs against the petitioners under the Land Revenue Act.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) 13.09.2024 JUDGE Naveen Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : Yes Page 13 of 13 13 of 13 ::: Downloaded on - 20-09-2024 00:25:51 :::