Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shashi Gupta & Others vs State Of Haryana & Others on 26 February, 2013
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP N0.1200 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1200 of 2013
Date of decision:26.02.2013
Shashi Gupta & others .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate, with
Mr.Ajaivir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
*****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notifications dated 30.05.2005 (Annexure P-6), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the 'Act') and dated 22.05.2006 (Annexure P-8, issued under Section 6 of the Act along with the award dated 16.07.2007 (Annexure P-16) mainly on the ground that the land of the petitioners fall within the area of regularized colonies which had been exempted from acquisition since the land is within the regularized Satsang Vihar Colony and similarly situated co-owners had been granted benefit.
2. It is alleged that the petitioners are owners of the land comprising in khasra No.32//6/2, 15/2 situated in village Bhatoli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. The plots of the petitioners are situated along with the other constructed house, in the same khasra number, which had been given house tax, electricity connection etc. and adjoins the present plots in question. The area under challenge, in the present writ petition, were plots of family members but no construction had been raised and only foundation work had been done. The CWP N0.1200 of 2013 2 petitioners could not raise the construction as notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued. Since the plots fell within the regularized colony of Satsang Vihar, which is within the municipal limits, electricity, water, sewerage facilities had been provided to the residents of the said colony. It is pleaded that objections had been filed under Section 5-A of the Act on 27.06.2005 and the notification was issued on 22.05.2006 without granting any proper hearing. Similarly situated persons and the family members of the petitioners, whose land had been acquired, had approached this Court by way of CWP No.15872 of 2006 titled Shakuntala Devi Versus State of Haryana & others in which status quo order was passed on 10.10.2006. Eventually, the writ petition was dismissed on 11.08.2008. Thereafter, review application No.320 of 2011 was also dismissed on 13.07.2012. The petitioners have filed SLP Nos.17127 and 17128 of 2012 and the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the orders of status quo on 14.12.2012.
3. The writ petition pertained to the plot in the very same khasra number in which the petitioners had raised the house which is the subject matter of the above-mentioned appeals and the matter is still sub-judice. The claim of the petitioners had been rejected on the ground that khasra No.32//6/2 and 15/2 do not fall under the regularized colony. The Government had released 258.354 acres of land out of 561.38 acres prior to the issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act for regularization and that the petitioners had been approached by many colonizers to buy their land with an assurance that they will get the land released. Reference has been made to the land measuring 76.994 acres and 10.90 acres, released to M/s B.G.Agritech Private Limited in joint venture with M/s Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited vide release order dated 04.07.2007. Reference was also made to land measuring 53.99 acres released to M/s Defodil Infrastructure Limited and its associate companies, even though there was no construction on the same and it was open vacant land. CWP N0.1200 of 2013 3 Reliance was placed upon Hari Ram Vs. State of Haryana 2010 (3) SCC 621 to submit that there was discrimination. It was further alleged that the land belonging to the petitioners has not been released due to defective and erroneous demarcation and that it fell out of the green belt.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, accordingly, submitted that though earlier also, husband of petitioner No.1 and petitioners No.2 & 3 had approached this Court but that was regarding the built up house and the godown portion and there was no challenge to the acquisition regarding the plots which are now the subject matter of the present writ petition. Record of CWP No.15872 of 2006 titled Shakuntala Devi Versus State of Haryana & others was called for. The civil writ petition which was filed by Shakuntala Devi, initially, challenging the same notifications regarding the land measuring 18 kanals 4 marlas, situated in village Bhatoli, comprising in khewat No.37 khatoni No.59 killa No.33//10, 11, 20, in which, objections under Section 5-A of the Act had also been filed. The plea taken therein was that there existed a residential house constructed along with pucca boundary walls of the godown to the height of 22' and a sum of `40 lacs had been spent in the land in question which was part of Satsang Vihar Colony, a regularized colony.
5. A Co-ordinate Division Bench, vide order dated 11.08.2008, had rejected the contention regarding the serving of notice under Section 5-A of the Act and also taking into account the fact that the land was needed for 60 metres wide green belt which falls in public and semi-public zone. Relevant observations reads as under:
"We have considered rival submissions and find no force in the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
As no definite address was given in section 5-A objection and further that in terms of provisions of Section 45 of the Act, the notice was affixed on the site under acquisition, no prejudice has been caused by the act of the State. That apart, the land is needed CWP N0.1200 of 2013 4 for 60 metres wide green belt, and also partly falls in public and semi public zone.
For the premises set out hereinabove, we dismiss the writ petition."
6. Thereafter, a review application came to be filed taking the plea that the land fell within the regularized and authorized colony. After taking into account the affidavit filed by the State, the Division Bench dismissed the review application on 13.07.2012 with the following observations:
"6. In view of the above-stated un-controverted and specific plea taken by the official respondents that the land(s) of the review- applicant/petitioner(s) does not fall within the regularised/authorized colony, we are of the considered view that the decisions in (i) RA No.326 of 2008 in CWP No.13413 of 2007 (Krishan Gopal and others vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 09.10.2009 (Annexure P21); (ii) CWP No.9678 of 2010 (Neelam @ Babita vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 28.07.2010 (Annexure P22); (iii) CWP No.7668 of 2010 (Harish Chand Benjamin vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 28.07.2010 (Annexure P25) passed by the Co-ordinate Benches, do not advance the claim of the review-applicant/petitioner(s).
7. Consequently, we do not find any merit in these review applications which are accordingly dismissed.
8. Photocopy of this order be placed on the record of other connected matter(s)."
7. Undisputedly, as per the petitioners themselves, the said orders are now the subject matter of challenge in SLP Nos.17127 and 17128 of 2012 in which interim orders have been passed. It is to be noticed that after the decision of the review application in CWP No.15872 of 2006 titled Shakuntala Devi Versus State of Haryana & others on 13.07.2012, on account of death of Shakuntala Devi on 08.05.2011, her LRs, namely, Shanti Sarup Gupta, Ravinder Kumar Gupta, Subhash Chander Gupta, Kamal Kumar Gupta and Suman Bansal were brought on record vide CM No.15839 of 2012 on 23.11.2012.
8. From the above sequence of events, it would be clear that earlier the husband of petitioner No.1, through his mother, had approached this Court by CWP N0.1200 of 2013 5 way of filing CWP No.15872 of 2006 titled Shakuntala Devi Versus State of Haryana & others and petitioner No.2 was also arrayed as LR of Shakuntala Devi whereas petitioner No.3, Deepa Gupta is wife of Kamal Kumar Gupta, who was also brought on record as one of the LRs of Shakuntala Devi. At no stage, they had earlier objected to the acquisition of land falling in khasra No.32//6/2, 15/2 situated in village Bhatoli Tehsil Jagadhri which was the subject matter of acquisition wayback on 30.05.2005 and the award was also passed on 16.07.2007. A perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3 in CWP No.15872 of 2006 would show that possession was also taken and handed over to the beneficiary department-Haryana Urban Development Authority (for brevity, the 'HUDA') on the date of the passing of the award except the land for which the orders of status quo was passed by any competent Court of law. Thus, the land in question which the petitioners themselves admit, is only in the nature of plots in which foundation work has been done and no construction has been raised, has been taken over by the official respondents and deemed to vest in the State under Section 16 of the Act. The same has further been handed- over to the development authority, namely, HUDA.
9. The present writ petition, now filed, challenging the said acquisition is patently barred by delay and laches in view of the facts narrated above and the petitioners cannot raise a fresh dispute regarding the plots in question of which, they had never chosen to agitate earlier. Reference to judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Ram(supra) to plead discrimination would also not help the petitioners as the earlier writ petition was dismissed after taking into account the fact that the land in question fell in the area of green belt and along the road which is to be used for public and semi-public zone and the plots do not fall within the area of the Satsang Vihar Colony as it is the petitioners' own case that the said plots are in the same khasra number and adjoins the earlier land in CWP N0.1200 of 2013 6 dispute.
10. Accordingly, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
26.02.2013 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
sailesh JUDGE