Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Narayan vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 July, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.13751 of 2011
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.13751 of 2011
Date of Decision: 17.07.2012
Om Narayan ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana,
for respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
The challenge in this petition is to the notification dated 01.04.2010 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") intending to acquire land measuring 3364 acres 5 kanals 2 marlas in villages, namely, Gopalpur, Pipli, Saidpur, Kundal, Rampur, Ferozpur Bangar, Nizampur Khurd, Sohti, Pahaladpur and Barona, Tehsil Kharkhauda, District Sonepat for public purpose, for the development of Industrial Model Township at Kharkhauda consisting of industrial, residential, commercial and institutional areas. The further challenge is to the notification dated 4.4.2011 issued under Section 6 of the Act expressing declaration to acquire, inter alia, the land of the petitioner falling in Khasra Nos.1259/1 (2B-2B) and 1583/2 (1B-2B) in village Kundal. CWP No.13751 of 2011 -2-
The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A on 28.04.2010 for release of land claiming that in an area admeasuring 200 sq. yards falling in Khasra No.1259/1 the family of the petitioner had constructed a Samadhi in the year 1997 of an ancestor and his bust was installed on a pedestal under the canopy of the samadhi, where the family offers worship on festivals. It is also pleaded that in Khasra No.1683/2, there is a boundary wall constructed many years ago. Besides, there were 20 guava trees standing thereon together with a khota with one tubewell and engine.
The objections under Section 5-A of the Act were considered by the Land Acquisition Collector and rejected vide order Annexure P-5. After hearing the petitioner in person, the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat found that there is no place of worship nor any such worship is practised at the samadhi or the land in dispute. A recommendation was made to the Government that the land falling in the khasra in dispute be acquired. Consequently, after hearing all objections including that of the petitioner the impugned notification under Section-6 of the Act stood issued. The prayer is that the land in dispute which is said to be gair mumkin as per the Jamabandi 2005-06 be ordered to be released from the acquisition.
On notice of motion having been issued, the State of Haryana has field its reply dated 19.03.2012. It is stated that the State Government is developing the Kundli-Manesar-Palwal (KMP) Expressway project connecting NH-1, NH-10, NH-8 and NH-2 with an objective to decongest NCT of Delhi bypassing the traffic outbound from Delhi. It has planned two new Industrial Model Townships (IMTs) at Roz ka Meo (Mewat) and CWP No.13751 of 2011 -3- Kharkhauda (District Sonipat) on the periphery of the KMP Expressway to exploit the opportunities thrown open by the KMP project and promote industry in these hithertofore industrially backward regions. It is in this background that the State Government decided to develop IMT, Kharkhauda and to provide quality industrial infrastructure in order to reduce the pressure on the other corridors and attract industry in this region with a view to bringing in balanced regional development. The Industrial Model Township at Kharkhauda is envisaged to be developed on the lines of IMT Manesar, which according to the respondent government has already been recognized as a landmark industrial infrastructure project across the country. HSIIDC has been named the nodal agency to carry out the integrated development of the project and to approve the development plans and it is stated that in all 158 Section 5-A objections were received involving 380 acres of land, which constitutes about 10% of the notified land. The recommendations of the LAC, Sonepat were considered and a high level team led by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Industries and Commerce Department himself and consisting of the Managing Director, HSIIDC, the Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat, the Additional Director (Technical) office of the Department of Industries and Commerce, the Chief Town Planner and the Senior Town Planner, HSIIDC and the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sonipat visited each of the sites in respect of which objections had been filed in the instant land acquisition on 12.03.2011 and the proposal under Section 6 of the Act was formulated based on a fair assessment of the said team. It is stated that while arriving at the decision, CWP No.13751 of 2011 -4- due regard has been paid to leave out such of the areas/already constructed structures as could be accommodated and adjusted within the development plans keeping in view the futuristic Development Plan of the Town whilst at the same time being alive and sensitive to the need for uninterrupted integration of various services as part of the infrastructure development plan. It has been admitted that the Samadhi does exist in the land admeasuring 200 sq. yards but it is one such type of construction which is neither used for religious purposes nor as a place of worship. Therefore, a conscious decision was taken to declare and include the land in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is submitted that the procedure laid down under the Act was scrupulously followed with regard to publication etc. It is further submitted that the State of Haryana has pioneered a rehabilitation policy contained in the notification dated 07.12.2007 as revised on 09.11.2010 which entitles land owners to an Annuity for their long term sustenance over and above the one time compensation paid to land owners. The scheme is attractive which the petitioner could avail.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length on the pleas raised and debated before us.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us on the question of retention of the samadhi and that it should be kept beyond the pale of acquisition. After all, the valuable right of hearing under Section 5-A was duly afforded to the petitioner and his objections (P-
3) were considered after affording effective hearing to him. That was not an empty formality or a dress rehearsal. The Land Acquisition Collector has CWP No.13751 of 2011 -5- assigned reasons for rejection which cannot be said to be unreasonable, unrealistic or arbitrary. The samadhi is certainly not one such which attracts public worship or a place of public veneration. We do not deny that personal sentiments of the petitioner and his family may be attached to the samadhi but larger public interest demands that the purposes of acquisition should be given free play and the intention full effect to, without let, hindrance or obstruction. The larger plan should not be sacrificed at the alter of the samadhi. We are of the considered view that the rigours of Section 5-A stand satisfied in this case inasmuch as the petitioner was heard and reason assigned for making the recommendation which are discernable on the face of record. The land acquisition collector was not expected to write a thesis or judgment on the objections. We are not unimpressed by the fact that a high level team headed by the Financial Commissioner visited the spot and made an on the spot assessment. We would go by that first hand assessment and habour no reason to disbelieve the functionaries of Government in reaching the conclusion that the land of the petitioner with constructions thereon deserves to be applied to the master plan of sustained development and in the larger public purpose of fashioning the Industrial Model Township at Kharkhauda without hindrances.
We consequently find no merit in the present petition and dismiss the same.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 17.07.2012 JUDGE manju