Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajmer Singh & Another vs State Of Haryana & Another on 12 March, 2013
Author: G.S.Sandhawalia
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, G.S.Sandhawalia
CWP No.5095 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5095 of 2013
Date of decision:12.03.2013
Ajmer Singh & another .....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & another ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
****
G.S.Sandhawalia J.
1. Challenge in the writ petition is to the notifications issued under Section 4 dated 11.07.2006 (Annexure P-1) and Section 6 dated 16.07.2007 (Annexure P-2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the 'Act') and also to the award dated 23.06.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed under Section 11 of the Act.
2. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that they are co-owners of the land measuring 1 kanal out of total land measuring 7 bighas and 14 biswas comprising in khewat No.599 khasra No.1467/3239 (7-14), situated at Tehsil and District Karnal. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for the expansion of the Industrial Estate, Sector 3, Karnal, wherein, the Government expressed its desire to acquire 76 acres 3 kanals and 3 marlas of land. Thereafter, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.07.2007 wherein 64 acres 1 kanal 10 marlas of land was sought to be acquired. Resultantly, the award dated 23.06.2009 was passed. The petitioners had no information regarding the declaration of the award, announced by the Land Acquisition Collector CWP No.5095 of 2013 2 (hereinafter, to be referred as the 'LAC') and they could not file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. It has further been averred that they have not received the amount of compensation announced under the award till date and are still in possession of their land/constructed area which was A-Class construction, raised for residential purpose, prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 & 6 of the Act. The property has been described as having 21 rooms, one store room and WC and bath area along with all basic amenities, i.e., water, sewerage, electricity etc. Photographs and the site plan of the construction were placed on record to show that the building was A-Class and the construction was certified by an architect and there was certificate issued by the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam. Accordingly, it was pleaded that about 12 acres of land of influential persons had been released and discrimination had been practiced. The land of the petitioners had been acquired and the petitioners were under the belief that the petitioners would be adjusted in the layout plan as the same was at the extreme end of the land which was sought to be acquired by the respondents and no useful purpose would be served by acquiring a small pocket of land which is surrounded by unacquired land.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that there was A- Class construction raised on the site and therefore, the land should have been exempted from acquisition. Reference is also made to the map to show that it was situated at such a place where it could be adjusted in the acquisition.
4. The arguments put by the counsel for the petitioners do not impress us. Admittedly, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that they had never filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act that they may be exempted under any policy on the ground that construction had been raised and that their land could be adjusted. Aforesaid provision provides a procedure where objections could be filed and an opportunity of hearing is to be granted to the land owners who can CWP No.5095 of 2013 3 convince the authorities by showing that the land is not required or can be suitably adjusted. The petitioners have not preferred the said remedy and now, being threatened of dispossession, they have approached this Court.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban & others 2000 (7) SCC 296 has held that if objections under Section 5-A have not been filed, then the landowners cannot challenge notification under Section 6. Relevant paragraph reads as under:
"54. In the present cases there is no dispute that the purpose is a public purpose. The applicant had not filed objections on grounds personally applicable to him or to his land seeking exclusion from acquisition, and the objections in that behalf must be deemed to have been waived. Such a person cannot be allowed to file a writ petition seeking the quashing of section 5A inquiry and section 6 declaration on personal grounds if he had not filed objections. Points 4 and 5 are decided accordingly against the applicants."
6. Subsequently, in Talson Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others 2007 (13) SCC 186 similar observations have flowed. Relevant paragraph reads as under:
"19. The appellant-company, being the owner of the land, has not filed objection under Section 5A, in principle, must be accepted that it had no objection to Section 4 notification operating in respect of its property. Those claimants-owners of the lands who have not filed objection under Section 5-A could not be allowed to contend that Section 5-A inquiry was bad and that consequently Section 6 declaration must be struck down and that then the Section 4 notification would lapse."
7. Admittedly, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.07.2007 and the award was announced on 23.06.2009 and the present writ petition has been filed more than 3 ½ years from the date of the passing of the award. The Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S Anand Buttons Ltd. Vs. State Of Haryana & others 2005 (9) SCC 164 held that exemption can be granted as a CWP No.5095 of 2013 4 matter of policy and not of law and it is not for the Court to interfere with the satisfaction of the authorities. Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under:
"13. It is trite law that not only land but also structure on land can be acquired under the Act. As to whether in a given set of circumstances certain land should be exempted from acquisition only for the reason that some construction had been carried out, is a matter of policy, and not of law. If after considering all the circumstances, the State Government has taken the view that exemption of the lands of the appellants would render askew the development scheme of the industrial estate, it is not possible for the High Court or this Court to interfere with the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. We see no ground on which the appellants could have maintained that their lands should be exempted from acquisition. Even if three of the parties had been wrongly exempted from acquisition, that gives no right to the appellants to seek similar relief."
8. The said judgment had been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & others 2010 (10) RCR 811. Admittedly, the land is being acquired for the public purpose of expansion of the Industrial Estate at Sector 3, Karnal and the right of the eminent domain to acquire would prevail over the right of the private individual. A perusal of the photographs and the building plans submitted by the petitioners would go on to show that it is in a shape of quarters made in the agricultural fields having 21 rooms and one bath and constructed for the purpose of letting out. The petitioners have nowhere averred that they are residing in the said constructed area and inhabiting the same. Even the site plan of the land being acquired (Annexure P-8), appended by the petitioners, show that the land of the petitioners is situated in the middle of field No.3239 and surrounded by the acquired land.
9. Accordingly, keeping in view the above observations and also keeping in mind that the acquisition proceedings have finalized and that petitioners CWP No.5095 of 2013 5 having not filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act are disentitled to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
12.03.2013 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
sailesh JUDGE