Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision: October 3 vs State Of Haryana And Others on 31 October, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1] Civil Writ Petition No.16402 of 2006
Date of Decision: October 31, 2013
M/s Ashwani Udyog and another .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
2] Civil Writ Petition No.16415 of 2006
M/s Lajja Rice and Oil Mills and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
3] Civil Writ Petition No.16416 of 2006
Ashwani Gupta and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
4] Civil Writ Petition No.16604 of 2006
Dalip Chand and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
5] Civil Writ Petition No.18199 of 2006
Pritam Kumar Goel and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
6] Civil Writ Petition No.1106 of 2007
Minakshi .....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
7] Civil Writ Petition No.9943 of 2007
Sandeep Kumar and another .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
Kumar Mohinder
2013.12.06 14:24
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh
CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [2]
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Sunil Sharma, Advocate, for the
petitioners (In CWP Nos.16402, 16415, 16416 of
2006 and CWP No.9943 of 2007.
Mr.Sumeet Sheokand, Advocate, for
Mr.R.S.Tacoria, Advocate,
for the petitioners (in CWP No.1106 of 2007).
Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate,
for the petitioners (in CWP No.16604 of 2006).
Mr.Deepak Manchanda, Advocate,
for the petitioners (in CWP No.18199 of 2006)
Mr.S.S.Patter, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate,
for respondent No.3 (HUDA).
***
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J.
This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.16402, 16415, 16416, 16604, 18199 of 2006 and 1106 & 9943 of 2007 as in all the cases the notifications dated 27.08.2004 and 24.08.2005 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively, have been impugned broadly on common grounds. These notifications pertain to acquisition of land/houses/structures/industrial units of the petitioners for "stetting up of Transport Nagar" by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, 'HUDA') in Sector-33, Jagadhri. To avoid multiplicity, the facts are being extracted from Civil Writ Petition No.16402 of 2006. However, for ready reference and effective adjudication of the issues raised, the facts of each case are being briefly noticed. Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [3] CWP No.16402 of 2006.
2] Petitioner No.1 (M/s Ashwani Udyog) is owner in possession of land measuring 5 bigha-14 biswas, situated within the revenue estate of village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, situated on Jagadhri Saharanpur Road, Sector-15, HUDA, where the petitioners initially installed a Rolling Mill but now they are running a saw mill and cement trading business also. The land is within the municipal limits of Yamuna Nagar-Jadhadhri. Petitioner No.2 is owner in possession of land measuring 22 bigha 12 biswas in the same revenue estate where the saw mill and other allied activities are being run. Both the petitioners have raised 'A' class construction consisting of office block besides industrial shed, machinery, labour quarters, generator room and temple etc. It is averred that both the firms are utilizing the whole premises/land for their business activities of saw mill, cement trading and misc. wood connected business etc. 3] Since the entire property of the petitioners was included in the proposed acquisition, the petitioners submitted their objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 22.09.2004 which, according to them, were mechanically rejected before the final declaration was notified under Section 6 of the Act on 24.08.2005.
4] The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Haryana, has filed the written statement on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4, inter-alia, maintaining that acquisition has been made to achieve a bonafide public purpose and the procedure as prescribed under the Act has been duly followed. It is averred that the constructed area alongwith proportionate open area of petitioner No.1 measuring 1613 square yards Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [4] comprising khasra Nos.84/85 which includes office room, three stores, labour quarters, cattle shed, store & toilet have since been exempted from acquisition. Similarly, the constructed area alongwith proportionate area measuring 2470 square yards consisting three labour quarters, four industrial sheds, one office room, temple and room owned by petitioner No.2 has also been released from acquisition and only their vacant land has been acquired.
CWP No.16415 of 20065] Petitioner No.1 is a rice and oil mill set-up in the year 1972 owned by petitioner Nos.2 & 3. Their land measuring about six acres within the revenue estate of village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, alongwith a cemented drain measuring 2000 ft. in length and also an orchard with various types of fruit trees has been included in the impugned acquisition. Their objections submitted on 22.09.2004 were rejected by the respondent-authorities allegedly without any application of mind.
6] The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana, has filed written statement on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 4 inter-alia, maintaining that acquisition has been made to achieve a bonafide public purpose and the procedure as prescribed under the Act has been duly followed. It is averred that constructed area of the petitioners alongwith proportionate open space measuring 7965 square yards has been released which includes office, four rooms, toilet, two storage sheds, labour quarters and three industrial sheds. It is further averred that "only vacant land of the petitioners is under acquisition proceedings".
Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [5] CWP No.16416 of 2006.
7] There are seven petitioners apparently belonging to one and the same family. Their case is that residential bunglow of 'A' class category, constructed over the land measuring 4 bigha 14 biswas besides an orchard on the land measuring 142 bigha 5 biswas situated within the revenue estate of village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, has been included in the proposal of acquisition. The petitioners submitted their objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 22.09.2004 which, as they allege, were mechanically rejected before issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act.
8] The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana, filed written statement on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4, inter-alia, maintaining that acquisition has been carried out to achieve a bonafide public purpose and the procedure as prescribed under the Act has been duly followed. It is explained that the residential bunglow, garage and two other rooms with open space, total measuring 1 bigha 13 biswas (1663 square yards) has been released and only the vacant land of the petitioners has been acquired.
CWP No.16604 of 20069] Four petitioners in this case are Dalip Chand and his three sons. Their case is that they are owner in possession of land measuring 48 bigha situated within the revenue estate of village Garhi Mundo, as described in para No.2 (i) of the writ petition, where an industrial unit known as Gupta Rice Mill has been set up. In addition, M/s Krishna Timbers and M/s Krishna Dharam Kanta were also established in the year 1992 with a log peeling machine, one saw mill and wooden core Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [6] cutting machinery. The inclusion of above stated land and the properties in the proposal for acquisition, the petitioners strongly objected to vide objections (Annexure P-2) submitted under Section 5-A of the Act but the same did not find favour with the State Government which arbitrarily included their property in the final declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act.
10] Two separate written statements have been filed, one by the District Town Planner, Yamuna Nagar (respondent No.4) and other by the State Government through respondent No.2. Besides defending the acquisition, it is now an admitted case that the constructed portion alongwith proportionate open space measuring 1250 square yards of the petitioners has been released from acquisition.
CWP No.18199 of 2006.
11] The petitioners in this case claim to be owners in possession of land measuring 16 bigha 15 biswas discripted in para No.2 of the writ petition, which is situated within the revenue estate of village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. The petitioners purchased the land vide registered sale deeds No.7108 and 7109 of 21.09.2004, i.e., after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It was purchased as the petitioners allegedly wanted to set-up an educational institution. The aforesaid land, however, has been acquired vide the impugned notifications notwithstanding the objections submitted by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act on 24.09.2004. As per the revenue record relied upon by the petitioners, it is a vacant agricultural land. 12] The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana, has filed written statement on behalf of respondent Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [7] Nos.1 & 4 and the preliminary objection No.3 taken by him reads as follows:-
"....3. That the petitioners filed objections u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. But they have no right to file their objections because the land in question was purchased after the issuance of notification under Section 4. Hence, they are not owners at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4....."
13] No portion of the acquired land of the petitioners has been released.
CWP No.1106 of 200714] The petitioner's case is that she resides with her husband at Nagpur where he is working as an Engineer in JASTOL India Limited though he originally belongs to Jagadhri. The petitioner purchased 18 marlas of land in village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, comprised in Khewat No.87/162, Khasra No.86 with an intent to construct a residential house thereon. The above-stated plot was included in the proposal for acquisition notified on 27.08.2004 against which the petitioner could not submit objections as she is living at a far away place. She came to know about the acquisition only when the notice under Section 9 of the Act dated 29.09.2006 (Annexure P-4) was received by her at Nagpur on 18.10.2006.
15] Two separate written statements have been filed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 respectively, maintaining that the acquisition has been carried out for a genuine public purpose and by following the prescribed procedure of law. The District Town Planner has in addition Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [8] attempted to justify the location of proposed Transport Nagar at the acquired site.
CWP No.9943 of 200716] The petitioners are sons and wife, respectively, of Ghanshyam and are stated to be owners in possession of land measuring 16 bigha-4 biswas fully described in para No.2 of the writ petition, situated within the revenue estate of village Garhi Mundo, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. Feeling aggrieved at the proposal to acquire the aforesaid land, the petitioners submitted objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 10.09.2004 which did not find favour with the State Government. Their land is admittedly vacant and agricultural land.
17] Though separate written statements have been filed by the respondents but the State counsel apprised us about the location of the petitioners' land as per the site plan and development plan on records which have been referred to by both the parties to support their respective pleas. 18] We may now summaries the manifold contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners to assail the subject acquisition. (i) Firstly, it was vehemently urged that the subject site is totally unsuitable for setting-up the Transport Nagar and the Urban Development Department has strongly objected to the acquisition of subject land/properties which fall within the municipal limits of Jagadhri-Yamuna Nagar; (ii) If the Transport Nagar is set-up at the proposed site, it will multiply the traffic congestion manifold, create chores in Jagadhri town which is already struggling with an un-ending stream of traffic jams near the Saharanpur road; (iii) since a conscious decision to not set-up Transport Nagar within the municipal Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [9] limits has been taken by the department competent to take such decision under the Rules of Business, vide memo dated 24.07.2006, no contrary decision by any other Department could be taken; (iv) the entire area is surrounded by residential sector and it would not be in public interest to establish Transport Nagar at the acquired land; (v) Most of the petitioners have raised 'A' class construction and utilized their respective properties as a source of their livelihood. The others who purchased the land, have also a definite plan for its utilization, hence no 'public purpose' would be served by depriving the petitioners of their respective properties; (vi) The acquisition of buildings/ structures found in existence at the time of issuance of Section 4 notification, is otherwise contrary to the Government Policy dated 26.10.2007; (vii) The proposed site is surrounded by various educational institutions and hospitals and the Transport Nagar if set up, would cause immense hardship to the general public as flow of vehicles will multiply. (viii) The objections submitted by the petitioners have been mechanically rejected without application of mind and contrary to the mandate of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat versus State of Haryana and others (2012) 1 SCC 792; Kamal Trading Private Limited versus State of West Bengal and others (2012) 2 SCC 25 and M/s Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms Private Limited and others versus State of Haryana and others (2013) 4 SCC 210; (ix) The petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination as the land/properties of various industrial units like M/s S.R. Jindal Plywoods, M/s B.R. Packwell Industries, M/s Ravi Saw Mills, Godown of M/s Ballarpur Industry Limited, M/s Gupta Rice Mills etc., which are close by have been left out on Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [10] pick and choose basis, (x) The subject site was short-listed for Transport Nagar as it was earlier supposed to adjoin the proposed bye-pass which has now been shifted much beyond the residential sectors as per the revised draft development plan on record, hence the impugned decision requires re- consideration.
19] Contrarily, Mr.Patter, learned State counsel urged that (i) the acquired land is the most suitable site for Transport Nagar as it is located on the Ambala-Yamuna Nagar road and will be well connected atleast from two sides with the main bye-pass so as to divert the entire traffic towards the peripheral roads of the town. (ii) While the subject site and the bye-pass are on the right hand side, Jagadhri town is on the left side of the proposed Transport Nagar, hence, the project would reduce the traffic menace. (iii) The main traffic rush in Jagadhri-Yamuna Nagar is towards Saharanpur area and since the Saharanpur road would be well connected with the bye- pass, the proposed Transport Nagar would be the most ideal option to decongest the city/area; (iv) Only 'low intensity vehicles' like three wheelers, Auto Rickshaw, Auto market shall be allowed for plying and parking etc. at the proposed Transport Nagar. It is not meant for Heavy Transport Vehicles like trucks for which a separate Transport Nagar is being set- up in Sector-8, Yamuna Nagar where the land has already been acquired, (v) The residential houses, industrial units and other constructed portions of the petitioners alongwith proportionate open space have since been released from acquisition, hence the plea of discrimination allegedly meted out to them is totally unfounded and without any substance.
Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [11] 20] We have heard learned counsel for the parties and the original records summoned from the State Government have also been perused.
21] The principal contention revolves around the location of Transport Nagar in Sector-33, Jagadhri. According to the petitioners, the proposal cannot be given effect in view of the objections raised by Urban Development Department. To appreciate this contention, we may firstly consider the letter dated 24.07.2006 (Annexure P-8) sent by the Director, Urban Development, Haryana to the Director, Town and Country Planning, which reads as follows:-
".....The perusal of the representation of Smt.Gauranwati and Sh.Parmod Kumar reveals that the applicants have raised the issue that the Transport Nagar should be outside the municipal limit of the town. The Government has examined this issue & observed that there seems no justification of having Transport Nagar within the municipal limits. The Transport Nagar may accordingly be earmarked outside the municipal limits.
Hence, the copy of the representation is enclosed herewith for necessary action....."
22] The above reproduced objection from Urban Development Department was considered in a joint meeting presided over by the Financial Commissioner, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, on 7.11.2008 resolving as follows:-
"....Kindly refer to the discussion on the above cited subject meeting held on 7.11.2008 at 10.30 a.m., under the Chairmanship of FCTCP, Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [12] Haryana. After detailed discussions, it was decided that :-
1. Transport Nagar may be set up in the already acquired land of Sector 33, Jagadhri. However, sites for low intensity vehicles like three wheelers, Auto rickshaws and parking, Auto Market etc., may be planned there. For Booking agencies and heavy transport vehicles, land may be acquired in Sector-8, Yamunanagar which shall be the main Transport Nagar.
2. HUDA will acquire land for construction of Bye-pass only where the adjoining land for sector is acquired. Major portion of this bye-pass road has been taken in hand by NHAI, and therefore, spending of money by HUDA on this portion shall otherwise be also not advisable....."
(emphasis applied) 23] The record reveals that the above-stated proposal was approved by the Chief Minister, Haryana. True it is that the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar sent a DO letter thereafter suggesting that the site of the Transport Nagar may be changed but his opinion did not find favour with the authorities in the Head Office.
24] In this view of the matter, the petitioners' contention that setting-up of the Transport Nagar at the proposed site contrary to the decision taken by the Competent Authority in the State Government is not borne out from the record, rather their objections against the Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [13] proposed site were rejected at the highest level. 25] The petitioners' plea that the proposed site would defeat the public purpose or would lead to create more traffic chaos and congestion within the township area, has been considered at length by the authorities who have finally decided to set-up only a 'Light Vehicles Transport Nagar at the proposed site and the Transport Nagar for Heavy Transport Vehicles is being shifted to Sector-8 Yamuna Nagar for which the land has already been acquired. The afore-stated decision sufficiently redresses the petitioners' apprehension. Moreover, the location of the site as per the revised development plan indicates that it is well connected with the proposed bye-pass and should help in eliminating the traffic congestion inside the city area. It may not be expedient for this court to express an opinion on this issue as it falls within the domain of Subject Experts.
26] The petitioners' contention founded upon the plea that the properties have been acquired and released in a discriminatory manner, is not supported by the material on record. Though a few factories are said to have been exempted from acquisition but in the absence of depiction of their exact location in the site plan, no inference of pick and choose can be drawn. The constructed portion/industrial sheds with sufficient open area of the petitioners have since been released keeping in view the State Government Policy on the subject. The petitioners themselves thus are beneficiaries of the release orders. The respondents have categorically averred that except where the lands were lying totally vacant, the constructed portion alongwith proportionate open area of each petitioner has been released.
Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [14] 27] Despite this, plea taken by the respondents the petitioners allege that their constructed area is much more than what has been released by the respondents. If that is so, we are of the view that the grievance of the petitioners deserves to be effectively redressed by the respondents in terms of their policy dated 26.10.2007, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
"The Government has framed a comprehensive policy as detailed below:-
1) No request will be considered after one year of award. Only those requests will be considered by the Government where objections under Section 5-A were filed.
2) Any request or application where structures have been constructed will only be considered for the release under Section 48 (1) provided the structure exists prior to section 4 and is inhabited.
3) Any factory or commercial establishment which existed prior to Section 4 will be considered for release.
4) xx xx xx xx
5) xx xx xx xx
6) xx xx xx xx."
28] The afore-policy has been held to be enforceable
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patasi Devi versus State of Haryana and others, (2012) 9 SCC 503 laying down that :-
"19. Before this Court it has been pleaded that on the date of issuance of preliminary notification the appellant's land was vacant, but, this statement cannot be relied upon for Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [15] denying relief to her because no such averment was made in the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court. The policy framed by the Government of Haryana clearly stipulates release of the land on which construction had been raised prior to issuance of Section 4 notification. The appellant's case is covered by that policy. Therefore, her land ought to have been released as was done in the case of M/s Sharad Farm and Holdings (P) Ltd......"
29] The petitioners' contention that the objections submitted by them under Section 5-A of the Act have not been duly considered, is not substantiated by the record. The written statements have fully described as to how the objections were considered and also give reasons for their rejection and/or partial acceptance. There was thus due application of mind before issuance of Section 6 notification. 30] However, keeping in view the specific plea taken by the petitioners and its reiteration at the time of hearing that structures/constructed portions and/or some reasonable open space have not been released from acquisition as per the Government policy referred to above, it appears to us that the appropriate recourse shall be to direct the respondents to conduct a fresh survey after advance notice to those petitioners who had raised construction before the issuance of Section 4 notification and re-measure their constructed area to ensure that besides such constructed area, an open space of almost equivalent size is also released to enable them to properly utilize and enjoy their released properties. Such an Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [16] exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
31] So far as the petitioners in CWP No.18199 of 2006 are concerned, they admittedly purchased the vacant land after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In view of the settled legal position, no relief can be granted to them. Otherwise also, no structure was found existing over their land at the time of Section 4 notification. Similarly, in CWP Nos.1106 of 2007 and 9943 of 2007 also, no order for the release of respective properties of the petitioners can be passed as no structure was admittedly raised by them before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 32] The petitioners in CWP Nos.1106 and 9943 of 2007 would, however, be entitled to allotment of alternative sites in the light of Government Policy dated 9.11.2010, the salient features whereof read as under:-
"D. Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy:
5. Allotment of residential plots in cases where a self-occupied residential house is acquired for unavoidable reasons:
Recognising the sensitivity involved in acquisition of built-up residential houses/structures for unavoidable reasons, the Government has decided to accord the highest priority to the resettlement of this category of persons. In the first instance, all efforts will be made by the acquiring departments to leave out the residential structures existing in the form of clusters from acquisition except where it becomes absolutely unavoidable either due to Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [17] its stand-alone character or its location being within the Right of Way of infrastructure projects such as roads, canals, railway line etc.; Accordingly, it has been decided that wherever any self-occupied residential structure/ house has to be acquired for unavoidable reasons in the process of acquisition of land by the Government for any purpose, such owners of built-up residential structures would be offered assured allotment of residential plots as per the following scale:
Scale of residential plots in cases where an existing self-occupied house/residential structure is acquired Scheme applicable upto 06.09.2010 Scheme revised w.e.f. 07.09.2010 Size of the Size of residential Size of the Size of residential house plot to be allotted residential house residential plot acquired acquired to be allotted Upto to 100 50 sq.yards Upto 150 sq.yards 90 sqm sq.yards Above 100 but upto 100 sq.yards Above 150 but 150 sqm 200 sq. yards upto 200 sq. yards Above 200 but upto 150 sq.yards Above 200 but 200 sqm 300 sq. yards upto 250 sq. yards Above 250 but 250 sqm upto 300 sq. yards Above 300 but upto 200 sq.yards Above 300but upto 300 sqm 400 sq. yards 400 sq. yards Above 400 but upto 250 sq.yards Above 400 but 350 sqm 500 sq. yards upto 500 sq. yards Above 500 sq.yards 350 sq.yards Above 500 450 sqm sq.yards As the affected persons would be entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of land and the structures constructed thereon, the price/ cost of the plots to be allotted in favour of the affected persons as per above scale would be payable by the allottee;
The benefit of allotment of a residential plot in this category would be admissible only if Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [18] the acquired residential house/ structure was self-occupied and was in existence on the date of issue of Section 4 Notification, and further subject to the condition that such residential house had not been constructed by way of any encroachment on the public/ community/ government land. The self-occupation of such house by the landowner's family as their regular residence would be an essential condition for this purpose. Residential structures used for rental purposes or those in the form of kothras in the fields would not be reckoned as 'residential houses' for this purpose;
While assessing the entitlement for size of the plot to be allotted, the land under the existing residential house only would be taken into account and not the appurtenant facilities for other farm operations. Further, while computing the area under such Residential House, the plinth area of the constructed house and equal area towards admissible open space shall be taken into account. Appendix-4 may be referred for the basis of calculation of area;
Development and allotment of the residential plots under this part would be the responsibility of the acquiring Department/ agency. Such plots, to the extent, possible, would be carved out in the area adjoining/ in close vicinity of the village abdi deh so that the displaced/ rehabilitated persons continue to remain a part of their social milieu. While Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [19] HUDA, HSIIDC, and the HSAMB would plan their residential blocks for this part as well as for the 'oustee' category as one cluster, the other acquiring departments would have to acquire additional land specifically for this purpose also..............."
33] For the reasons afore-stated, the impugned notifications dated 27.08.2004 and 24.08.2005 are upheld. However, with a view to extend the benefit of Government Policies dated 26.10.2007 and 9.11.2010, these petitions are disposed of with following directions:-
i) The respondents shall conduct a fresh survey of the area where the constructions were found in existence at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and shall re-
demarcate the constructed area with advance notice to the petitioners to give full effect to the Policy dated 26.10.2007 and release the constructed area alongwith reasonable open space which may be equivalent in size to their constructed area. An appropriate order in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month after conducting the fresh survey as per the directions issued in para No.30 of this order;
ii) Those petitioners who have not been found entitled to the benefit of the policy dated 26.10.2007, shall be granted the benefit of Rehabilitation Policy notified on 9.11.2010, within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.06 14:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.16402 of 2006 & connected cases [20] 34] Ordered accordingly.
35] Dasti.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
October 31, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA]
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2013.12.06 14:24
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh