Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Yadav & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 7 November, 2012
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 07.11.2012
C.W.P.No.14344 of 2011 (O&M)
Jagdish Yadav & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
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?
Present : Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
C.M.No.15793 of 2012 Application is allowed. Replication on behalf of the petitioners is permitted to be taken on record.
CWP No.14344 of 2011 The petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging acquisition of land measuring 7 Kanals 10 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Village Jharsa, Tehsil & District Gurgaon purchased vide sale deeds dated 15.01.1985 and 03.06.1988. The petitioners have asserted that they have set up a Weigh Bridge over such land.
CWP No.14344 of 2011 (O&M) 2
The land owned by the petitioners was intended to be acquired vide notification dated 18.09.2006 published under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') for the public purpose namely for the development and utilization of the Service Road and Green Belt on either side of National Highway No.8 starting from Delhi-Haryana Border up to Rajiv Chowk, Gurgaon. Such intention of acquisition of land was followed by a declaration dated 19.09.2006 under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) of the Act. Thereafter, a notice dated 12.03.2007 under Section 9 of the Act was served upon the petitioners, whereas the Award in this respect was announced on 15.09.2008. The present petition has been filed before this Court on 22.07.2011 by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Prahlad Singh & others Vs. Union of India & others (2011) 5 SCC 386.
It is pleaded in the writ petition itself that the respondents has taken forcible possession of the land and have utilized the same for wine and whisky shop by putting up temporary shed. It is alleged that the land of the petitioners is not being used for the development and utilization of the Service Road and Green Belt on either side of National Highway No.8, the purpose declared in the notification. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have not withdrawn the compensation, but came to know about the acquisition, when the respondents demolished the Weigh Bridge on 17.06.2011.
In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.5, it has been pleaded that notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette on 18.09.2006 and that an entry in this regard was also made vide rapat rojnamcha dated 29.09.2006. The CWP No.14344 of 2011 (O&M) 3 substance of the notification was also published in two daily newspapers i.e. Amar Ujala (Hindi) on 21.09.2006 and National Herald (English) on 23.09.2006. The substance of the notification was also pasted on the notice board of the concerned Revenue Office apart from publication by beat of drum. The declaration under Section 6 was published in the Gazette on 19.09.2006 apart from publication in two daily newspapers i.e. Amar Ujala (Hindi) on 22.09.2006 and National Herald (English) on 23.09.2006. The entry of the declaration was made in the roznamcha on 25.09.2006 and that the substance of the declaration was also pasted on the notice board of the concerned Revenue Office apart from publication by beat of drum. The notices under Sections 9 and 12(2) of the Act were issued on 12.03.2007 and 11.09.2008 respectively. The Award was announced on 15.09.2008. It is also pleaded that for announcement of the Award, the notice under Section 12(1)(2) of the Act was issued on 11.09.2008 and that the notice was also affixed on the entry gate of the boundary wall of the petitioners. It is also pleaded that Weigh Bridge was not in existence at the time of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, but only some rooms were present at the time of publication of the notification, which were also unauthorized as the petitioners were served with a notice for removal of unauthorized construction (Annexure P-6) under Section 208(A) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973.
In a separate reply filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it is averred that the present writ petition has been filed after three years of the Award and taking over the possession on 15.09.2008. Therefore, the present petition is not maintainable in view of the judgments in Star Wire (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar Vs. Shah Hyder Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. CWP No.14344 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Padma Vs. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (1997) 2 SCC 627 and Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan (2008) 4 SCC 695.
The petitioners have also filed rejoinder primarily to seek amendment in the writ petition, but not controverting the factual assertions in respect of the publication of the notifications and possession made by the respondents in the written statements.
In C.M.No.9960 of 2012, the petitioners have sought to amend the writ petition primarily to implead the persons named in paras 3, 4 & 5 of the writ petition for the reason that though the petitioners have alleged allegations of mala fide against such persons, but inadvertently not impleaded. Therefore, the application be allowed so as to permit the petitioners to implead the persons against whom the allegations of mala fide have been levelled.
Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently argued that though the petitioners have filed the present petition after the possession was taken by the respondents, but since the action of taking possession is illegal, therefore, the petitioners have a right to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is also argued that the notices as contemplated under Section 12 (2) of the Act have not been served upon the petitioners after the announcement of the Award. Therefore, the stand of the respondents in the written statements is not tenable in law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has argued that the writ petition has been filed after almost three years of the announcing of the Award and deposit of the compensation. As per the CWP No.14344 of 2011 (O&M) 5 petitioners themselves, the possession of the land is with the respondents. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to impugn the acquisition after a long lapse of time, when the land vests free from all encumbrances with the State. It is also argued that the judgment in Prahlad Singh's case (supra) is of no assistance to the argument advanced as the possession of land, admittedly, is with the respondents prior to the filing of the present writ petition.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and found no merit in the present writ petition. It appears that the allegations of mala fide, which have been raised in the writ petition, are for the sake of allegations, as none of the person was impleaded, as respondent in the first instance. It was incumbent upon the petitioners, who have filed the present petition through a seasoned Advocate dealing with the land acquisition cases that the person against whom allegations of mala fide are levelled is required to be impleaded as respondent. It, thus, appears that the allegations of mala fide have been levelled for the sake of it and with a view to create sensation in proceedings by impleading a person with political background. The application to seek amendment in the writ petition and to implead additional respondents lack not only bona-fide, but is wholly unwarranted. The writ petition has been filed almost three years after the possession was taken. We do not find that at this stage, the petitioners can be permitted to implead parties by amending the writ petition.
On merits, we find that as per the averments made by the petitioners themselves, they were dispossessed prior to filing of the present writ petition. The petitioners have filed the writ petition after three years of the Award. It is unbelievable that the petitioners were not CWP No.14344 of 2011 (O&M) 6 aware of the acquisition proceedings. In fact, that is not even the stand of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have failed to invoke the jurisdiction of this court impugning the notification within the reasonable time of initiation of acquisition proceedings.
That stand of the petitioners is that they have installed Weigh Bridge over the acquired land, whereas the respondents have categorically stated that there was no weigh bridge, but some rooms were constructed, which were also unauthorized. As per the respondents, they have taken possession of the acquired land soon after the Award was announced i.e. in September 2008. There is no reason to disbelieve the date of taking of possession in view of the fact that the petitioners themselves admit that they stand dispossessed. Therefore, the petitioners cannot take benefit of the judgment of Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh's case (supra) in any manner, when the writ petition has been filed after three years of taking of possession by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that notice under Section 12 (2) was given even prior to the announcement of the Award, therefore, such notice is not a sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. We do not find any merit in the said argument as well. As per the written statement, the petitioners were given notice under Section 9 of the Act on 12.03.2007 so as to put forward their interest in the land as well as particulars of their claim. Section 11 of the Act contemplates enquiry and award by Collector. Section 12 provides that an Award given under Section 11 of the Act shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall be final and conclusive evidence, as between the Collector and the persons interested. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 contemplates that the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award CWP No.14344 of 2011 (O&M) 7 to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made.
Mr. Sehgal has produced a copy of the notice dated 11.09.2008 served upon the petitioners under Section 12 of the Act. Such notice provides that the Land Acquisition Collector shall announce the award on 15.09.2008 at 11.00 AM in the office of Land Acquisition Collector at HUDA Complex, Sector 14, Gurgaon and that the amount of compensation shall be disbursed in accordance with the Rules. The petitioners were called upon to come on that date along with an affidavit and the identity documents.
Section 12 of the Act contemplates notice of the Award to such persons, who are not present personally, when the Award is made. The petitioners were given notice to remain present at the time of announcing of the Award, but they were not present at the time of announcement of the Award in terms of the recitals in the Award. Such notice satisfies the mandate of law contained in Section 12 of the Act. As per Section 12 of the Act, the Collector could give notice prior to announcement of the Award giving the date on which Award is to be announced. The Collector could also give notice after the Award is announced to give notice to the persons, who were not present at the time of announcing of the Award. Since the Collector has given notice to the petitioners to appear on 15.09.2008 along with an affidavit and document of identity with clear stipulation that the Award shall be announced on said date, it satisfies the mandate of law contained in Section 12(2) of the Act.
CWP No.14344 of 2011 (O&M) 8
In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the acquisition proceedings nor can the petitioners be permitted to impugn the acquisition proceedings almost after three years of announcing of the Award.
Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
07.11.2012 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
Vimal JUDGE