Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagdish Rai @ Jagdish Chander And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 14 October, 2014
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
CWP No. 14193 of 2013 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 14193 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.10.2014
Jagdish Rai @ Jagdish Chander and another
.. Petitioners
v.
The State of Haryana and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
The petitioners have approached this court impugning the order dated 14.6.2013 (Annexure P-20), passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana, Public Health Engineering Department, Panchkula, whereby the claim of petitioner No. 2 for appointment in terms of the Policy for Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Land Owners Land Acquisition Oustees (hereinafter referred to as 'the policy') dated 9.11.2010, was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1-Jagdish Rai @ Jagdish Chander was owner of total land measuring 26 kanals and 16 marlas comprised in Rect. No. 30, Killa No. 21/2/1(2-4), 22/1(0-6), Rect. No. 31, Killa No. 25/2(0-6) and Rect. No. 46, Killa No. 1 (8-0), 2(8-0) and 3 (8-0), situated in village Bhodia Khera, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. He transferred 8 kanals of land comprised in Rect. No. 46, Killa No. 3(8-0) in favour of his mother-Smt. Shanti Devi vide registered gift deed dated 24.4.2006. Petitioner No. 1 was left with 18 kanals and 16 marlas of land, as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05. State of Haryana, vide notification dated 27.10.2009, issued under Section 4 of MANOJ KUMAR 2014.10.31 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 14193 of 2013 [2] the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') acquired 16 acres, 1 kanal and 13 marlas of land for Disposal Works & Sewage Treatment Plant on Kharati Khera road in Bhodia Khera Rural, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. Finally, 16 kanals of land owned by petitioner No. 1 was acquired. Besides this, even 8 kanals of land, which was transferred by petitioner No. 1 in favour of his mother, was also acquired. The award was announced by the Collector on 10.3.2011. The compensation was paid.
It was submitted that in terms of the policy, with the acquisition of land owned by petitioner No. 1, he became entitled to get job for one of his dependents. The policy provided that 75% of the land owned by the person should have been acquired and the same should be of minimum two acres. It also provides that the revenue record to be seen for the purpose is 4 years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the case in hand, petitioner No. 1 owned merely 18 kanals and 16 marlas of land, out of which 16 kanals was acquired, hence, the same was more than two acres. The acquisition was also for more than 75% of the total holding of petitioner No. 1, hence, he was eligible to get job for one of the dependents. The submission is that rejection of the case of the petitioners on the ground that 4 years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the total land owned by petitioner No. 1 was 26 kanals and 16 marlas and the acquisition of land being only 16 kanals, the same being not 75% of the holding, petitioner No. 1 is not eligible to seek appointment for dependent family member, is totally wrong as out of the total holding of 26 kanals and 16 marlas of land, as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05, petitioner No. 1 had transferred 8 kanals of land to his mother by way of gift on 24.4.2006. Even that portion of the land was also acquired. Meaning thereby, if the total holding of petitioner No. 1 is taken as 26 kanals and 16 marlas, total acquired land was 24 kanals which was more than 75%. The provision for seeing ownership of a person in terms of the revenue record 4 years prior to the date of acquisition is to check misuse or fraudulent transfers made just prior to the acquisition to claim employment. The case in hand is not such. The transfer was not in favour of a third party. The transferee therein had not become entitled to employment MANOJ KUMAR 2014.10.31 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 14193 of 2013 [3] in her own right. It was a family transfer. The total holding of petitioner No. 1 was 26 kanals and 16 marlas, out of which 24 kanals was acquired. The policy being beneficial deserves to be given purposive interpretation.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that as per the policy, owner of the land, whose land is acquired, has to satisfy that 75% of the land owned by him 4 years prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, has been acquired. In the case in hand, the total holding of petitioner No. 1 four years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act being 26 kanals and 16 marlas, out of which only 16 kanals having been acquired, the same being not 75%, the benefit of employment in terms of the policy cannot be granted. The policy does not make a distinction regarding transfer of land in favour of family member or otherwise, as transfer is transfer.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
The facts, which are not in dispute, are that as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05, petitioner No. 1 owned 26 kanals and 16 marlas of land. Out of that, vide registered gift deed dated 24.4.2006, he transferred 8 kanals of land in favour of his mother. Out of the total holding of petitioner No. 1, i.e., 18 kanals and 16 marlas, 16 kanals of land was acquired. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27.10.2009. Eight kanals of land, which was gifted by petitioner No. 1 to his mother on 24.4.2006, was also acquired. Meaning thereby, out of the total holding of petitioner No. 1, i.e., 26 kanals and 16 marlas, four years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, 24 kanals of land was acquired. Clause 11 of the policy provides for benefits for the affected persons whose land is acquired for infrastructure projects other than those of HUDA, HSIIDC and HSAMB. The relevant provisions thereof are extracted below:
"11. Benefits for the affected persons whose land is acquired for infrastructure projects other than those of HUDA, HSIIDC and the HSAMB:MANOJ KUMAR 2014.10.31 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 14193 of 2013 [4]
i) While provision has been made for allotment of oustee category plots in case of land acquired for development by HUDA, HSIIDC, and the HSAMB and for allotment of commercial sites/industrial plots in case of those landowners whose 75% land gets acquired (subject to a minimum of one acre) for these organisations, extension of these additional benefits in case of the landowners whose land is acquired for public purposes other than these organisations, has not been found feasible. To that extent, it is also fortuitous.
ii) In order to balance this situation and partially compensate the landowners in this category, it has been decided that wherever 75% or more land of a landowner in a revenue estate, subject to a minimum of two acres, is acquired for other infrastructure projects, and thereby impacting his sustenance to a considerable extent, one dependent of the land-owning family would be provided a job in the Government or its Boards/Corporations/ State PSUs in Group D and Group C categories, subject to the incumbent fulfilling the qualifications prescribed for such posts;
iii) Recognising that certain persons may indulge in large scale division of their holdings to acquire title to government jobs in this process, the entitlement of dependants would be based on the revenue records of four years prior to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act or a corresponding provision in other statutes;
xx xx xx"
The aforesaid provisions provide that wherever 75% or more land of a landowner in a revenue estate, subject to a minimum of two acres, is acquired for any infrastructure projects, one dependent of the land-owning family would be provided a job in the Government or its Boards/ MANOJ KUMAR 2014.10.31 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 14193 of 2013 [5] Corporations/ State PSUs in 'Group D' and 'Group C' categories. To check mis-use, safeguard has been provided in Clause 11 (iii), wherein it has been laid down that entitlement of dependents would be based on the revenue record of four years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
The respondents rejected the claim on the ground that out of total holding of petitioner No. 1, four years prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e., 26 kanals and 16 marlas, only 16 kanals of land had been acquired. The same being not 75% of the total holding, petitioner No. 1 cannot claim employment for a dependent family member. However, in my opinion, the reason assigned is erroneous and cannot stand in judicial scrutiny. The policy has to be given purposive interpretation. The provision itself shows that the same was framed to provide sustenance to the family whose substantial land holding is acquired. If the facts of the case are considered, no doubt four years prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, petitioner No. 1 owned 26 kanals and 16 marlas of land. Out of that, 8 kanals of land was transferred by him in the name of his mother by way of gift deed dated 24.4.2006. He was left with 18 kanals and 16 marlas of land. The State had acquired entire 8 kanals of land, which was transferred by petitioner No. 1 in favour of his mother by way of gift and 16 kanals of land, out of 18 kanals and 16 marlas, left with him. Meaning thereby, out of total holding of petitioner No. 1 four years prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e., 26 kanals and 16 marlas of land, 24 kanals of land was acquired. The transfer of land by petitioner No. 1 in favour of his mother cannot be said to be for any commercial purpose. It was within family. Even if the land was in the name of his mother, it was being used for sustenance of the family. The object of the policy is to provide support for sustenance of the family. In fact, petitioner No. 1 was left only with 2 kanals and 16 marlas of land after acquisition of land owned by him including the land which was transferred by him in favour of his mother. The beneficial policy cannot be kept in water tight compartment. There is a need to see the purpose for which it was framed and the fruits thereof should be given to all MANOJ KUMAR 2014.10.31 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 14193 of 2013 [6] the persons who are entitled to the same. However, care has to be taken to see that somebody may not get the benefit thereof by playing fraud. The case in hand is not such.
For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order dated 14.6.2013 (Annexure P-20) is quashed. Petitioner No. 1 is held eligible for getting employment for dependent member of the family on account of acquisition of his land. The needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 14.10.2014 mk (Refer to Reporter) MANOJ KUMAR 2014.10.31 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document