Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davinder Singh vs State Of Haryana Etc on 14 January, 2011
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.22771 of 2010
Date of decision: 14.1.2011
Davinder Singh
.....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana etc.
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
C.M. Nos.298-299 of 2011 Applications allowed, documents are taken on record. CWP No.22771 of 2010 This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 15.1.2008. Further prayer is to quash the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 14.1.2009, proposing to acquire a vast tract of land, including land of the petitioner.
It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that there is a Policy of the State Government not to acquire constructed buildings. By ignoring that Policy, despite objections raised, house owned by the petitioner has been ordered to be acquired. It is not in dispute that the petitioner purchased the land only on 26.10.2007, notification under Section Civil Writ Petition No.22771 of 2010 2 4 of the Act was issued on 15.1.2008. Suspecting that within such a short span of time, building cannot be constructed, on 21.12.2010, following order was passed by this Court:-
"It is apparent from the records that the property, in dispute was purchased vide sale deed dated 25.10.2007. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) was issued on 15.1.2008. In this writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner that he has full-fledged residential house in the property in dispute. It is doubtful whether in such a short span of time, the house can be constructed. The petitioner is directed to place on record copies of the bills vide which material was purchase to construct the house and also when electric meter was installed in the house in question. Whether any site plan was got sanctioned from the authorities concerned or not and if so when?
On request adjourned to 14.1.2011."
In response thereto, some documents have been put on record by moving an application. We tried to know the authenticity of these documents, by looking into averments made by the petitioner in the objections filed by him under Section 5-A of the Act on 8.2.2008. In his objections, the petitioner has stated that he has raised construction and also got an electric connection in his house, whereas to the contrary, as per certificate put on record dated 5.1.2011(P17), electric connection was released in favour of the petitioner only on 5.4.2008. Furthermore, as per certificate issued by the Contractor on 26.10.2007, the Contractor has received only Rs.5000/- to raise construction as an advance. This certificate Civil Writ Petition No.22771 of 2010 3 does not show when the work was completed. Most of the receipts regarding purchase of material, put on record, pertain to the months of November, 2007, December 2007 and January 2008. If that is so, we are not convinced that the house was constructed before issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act. We have seen with concern that in many cases it has become a habit of the land owner, when filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act, to wrongly say that construction exists on the land under acquisition and then in the meantime, construction is raised before conclusion of the acquisition proceedings. Many petitions have been fled in that regard. On account of that, we prefer to ask for even the minor details as to when the construction was raised.
Counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any discrimination done to the petitioner. No case is made out for interference.
Dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of writ petition, C.M. No.300 of 2011 and all other pending C.M. applications have become infructuous.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
14.01.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
gk Judge