Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Singh And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 5 February, 2025
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB
CWP-4504-2015 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-4504-2015 (O&M)
Reserved on: 23.01.2025
Date of Decision : February 05, 2024
MOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER
...Petitioners
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present : Mr. Mohan Singh-Petitioner No.1 in person.
Mr. Pravindra Singh Chauhan, Advocate General, Haryana with
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana
Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana and
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with
Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate,
Ms. Saanvi Singla, Advocate and
Mr. Siddharth Arora, Advocate for HSIIDC.
***
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant writ petition the petitioners pray for the quashing of notifications, as became respectively issued, 28.10.2013 and, on 27.10.2014 (Annexure P-1 and P-4), notifications whereof become respectively issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1894").
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The State Government through the Department of Industries issued notification dated 23.12.2005 under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, for 1 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -2- acquisition of land measuring 278 acres 1 kanal 1 marla of villages Dhakola, Saha, Tepla and Jawahargarh, Tehsil Saha District Ambala, for setting up of the Growth Centre, Saha, Phase-ll, Tehsil Saha, District Ambala.
3. Keeping in view the recommendations of the LAC, Ambala and the comments of the HSIIDC, the State Government issued declaration dated 29.12.2006 under section 6 of the Act notifying 274 acres 4 kanal 16 marla land of villages Dhakola, Saha, Tepla and Jawahargarh, Tehsil Saha, District Ambala.
4. Aggrieved by the above acquisition proceedings, a number of landowners made representations before the Government for release of their structures viz. residential houses, shops, religious buildings etc. Accordingly, it was observed that the total blocks of the acquired land, thus having structures may be released from the acquisition wherebys the State Government issued notification dated 25.07.2008 under Section 48 of the Act of 1894, whereupon the releases were made of lands measuring 28 acres 1 kanal 10 marla of villages Dhakola, Saha and Tepla, Tehsil Saha, District Ambala. The LAC, Ambala, announced the apposite award on 15.11.2008, wherebys become effectively concluded the launched acquisition proceedings, wherebys excepting qua the released lands to the (supra), in respect whereof there was a stay against dispossession of the other lands, the possession qua all the other lands, thus covered by the subject award, also became assumed by the competent authority.
5. Aggrieved by the acquisition of their land, various landowners approached this Court by way of writ petitions. The petitioners also approached this Court by way of CWP No.19293 of 2008, titled 'Mohan Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others' seeking release of their 2 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -3- land. The said writ petition along with a bunch of other CWPs pertaining to the said land acquisition was allowed by this Court vide order 16.12.2010 in CWP No.1048 of 2008 titled 'Deepak Aggarwal and others v. State of Haryana and others' as the lead case. Relevant portion of the order dated 16.12.2010 is as under:-
"Accordingly, we allow these writ petitions (except CWP No.108 of 2009) qua the petitioners in all the writ petitions, excluding those petitioners who have not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and also those who have accepted compensation for the land under acquisition and quash the impugned notifications. However, liberty shall remain with the State to acquire the land in question, if we need be, as per law."
6. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.12.2010 rendered by this Court in CWP No.1048 of 2008, some of the petitioners in CWP No.1048 of 2008, approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing SLP No. 27987-988 of 2011 titled 'Davinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others', but the said SLP, rather became dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.11.2015.
7. A reading of the (supra) extracted order made by this Court, upon CWP-1048-2008 order whereof acquired effective conclusivity, as, the SLP directed thereagaisnt became dismissed, thus unfolds that therebys in respect of those land-losers, who had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, and, who had also not accepted the determined compensation amount, thereupons but in respect thereof, rather the launched acquisition proceedings, thus became quashed, and, set aside. Nonetheless yet liberty was reserved to the State to re-launch acquisition proceedings, thus covering the subject lands.
3 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -4-
8. In pursuance to the said preserved liberty vi-a-vis the acquiring authority, the LAC, Ambala, vide letter dated 01.06.2012 submitted a proposal for acquisition of the land which was forming part of already acquired land vide Awards dated 15.11.2008. The said proposal was grooved in the ground that the lands detailed therein were required for executing a public purpose project. It was also stated that the land proposed to be acquired had been released in view of the orders of this Court in CWP No. 1048 of 2008 and other connected cases.
9. However, the HSIIDC vide letter dated 12.07.2012 also submitted a proposal for acquisition of the said land, stating that the land released under the orders of the Court, were required to be acquired, as they were needed for roads circulation, green belt and internal planning proposals and the left-out pockets were affecting the planning proposals of the HSIIDC and also blocking the road Infrastructure. Moreover, it is also stated in the said letter that the lands related to the land-losers if they were not acquired, therebys the planning proposals of the HSIIDC would become adversely impacted.
10. Be that as it may, the Department of Industries vide letter dated 13.09.2012 requested the HSIIDC to re-examine the matter from the legal point of view, as the Corporation on the one had has filed Review Applications against the order dated 16.12.2010, which were still pending in this Court, and, on the other hand, the Corporation was sending proposals for acquisition of land. However, in the meantime, this Court vide order dated 02.11.2012, rather dismissed the said Review Applications. Resultantly, the Department of Industries vide letter dated 20.02.2013, once again requested the Corporation to re-examine the matter in the view of the 4 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -5- (supra) orders of this Court in Review Applications. Pursuant thereto, the HSIIDC vide letter dated 09.09.2013 informed that the Corporation had not challenged the order dated 16.12.2010 qua those writ petitions, whereins, the notifications dated 23.12.2005 and 29.12.2006, stood quashed and set aside, but liberty was yet reserved to the acquiring authority to re-acquire the lands, and also requested that the matter relating to launching of fresh acquisition proceedings be expedited, as the lands which were covered in the writ petition (supra) rather were in terms of the liberty (supra) reserved to the acquiring authority, thus was required to be re-acquired, as therebys, they would facilitate the public purpose, as stated in the letter dated 2.07.2012.
11. It was in this background that the present set of notifications became issued so as to complete the necessary infrastructure facilities in a Government Project, for which the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2005.
12. Keeping in view the above, the State Government issued notification dated 28.10.2013 under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, thus for acquiring land measuring 43.09 acres of villages Saha, Dhakoula, Tepla, Jawaharghar and Bihta, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala, hence for setting for the development of Industrial Growth Centre, an Integrated Industrial Complex with all basic amenities including housing, commercial, recreational etc in Tehsil Barara, District Ambala. The said notification was published in Official Gazette of the State Government vide notification No.32/5/2013-4181 dated 28.10.2013 and also in two daily newspapers namely "Times of India" (English) dated 02.11.2013 and "Amar Ujala"
(Hindi) dated 02.11.2013.
5 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -6-
13. That pursuant to the initiation of the process of acquisition of land as made through the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, a number of landowners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector considered these objections and submitted his recommendations to the Government. Keeping in view the recommendations of the LAC and the comments of the HSIIDC, thus on the objections, as become filed under Section 5-A, thereupons the Government concurred with the apposite recommendations and permitted the making of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894.
14. In the making of the said decision, adequate regard was given to leave from acquisition, those areas/already constructed structures, if could be accommodated and adjusted within the development plans, while also being sensitive to the need for uninterrupted Integration of various services as part of the infrastructure Development Plan.
15. Vide judgment dated 05.09.2017, this Court had disposed of the instant writ petition, along with the bunch of case, main case being CWP- 1513-2015 with the following observations:
"However, the State shall be at liberty to either initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of land or negotiate with the landowners for purchasing/ retaining the land in accordance with law, in case the land in question is required for completion of any project or otherwise. The petitioners shall maintain status quo regarding the land in question for a period of six months to enable the State to take decision. All other issues raised in the writ petitions are left open as this Court has not expressed any opinion thereon.
The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly."
6 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -7-
16. The said order became challenged by the HSIIDC before the Apex Court through the filing SLP(C) No.4229 of 2019, to which Civil Appeal No.3913 of 2024, was subsequently assigned. Through an order made thereons on 27.02.2024, thus the Apex Court, remanded the lis to this Court for a re-decision thereons, on merit(s). Relevant paragraphs whereof become extracted hereinafter.
"4. In view of the aforesaid orders, the appeal is allowed with particular reference to the issue decided alone.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.09.2017 stands set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration of all the other issues on merits that have been raised by the parties in their respective petition(s) in accordance with law.
6. Taking into consideration the long pendency of the proceedings, coupled with the subsequent developments that may have occurred, we request the High Court to make an endeavour to decide these matters within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to state that the status quo as of today shall be maintained by the parties.
7. The appeal is allowed accordingly."
17. Insofar as the land of the petitioners are concerned, as per the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil)-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala (the LAC, Ambala) the petitioners filed joint objections for release of their land comprised in Khasra Nos. 11//26/2(0-16) of village Dhakola, on the ground, that the objectors had constructed their residential house, over the subject property in the year 2012 and it fell within the residential and commercial cluster. The LAC, Ambala, considered the objection filed by the petitioners and recommended to release the land comprised in Khasra No. 11//26/2(0-16), on account of thereons existing the residential house of the petitioners. The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC), the implementing agency of the project, 7 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -8- recommended that the objectors land/ house was forming part of land required for 30 meters wide road. The HSIIDC, therefore, recommended to acquire the land of the objector, but subject to the condition that the owner would be allotted land proportionate to the size of the constructed house, but in the nearby area, awarding compensation, on compensation rate besides, yet the landowners would become entitled to structure award. The State Government, after considering the recommendations of the LAC, Ambala, and the comments of the HSIIDC, thus decided to acquire the land of the petitioners and the same was included in the Section 6 declaration dated 27.10.2014.
18. Keeping in view the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala and the comments of the HSIIDC, the State Government decided to notify the land and accordingly, declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, was issued by the State Government vide notification dated 27.10.2014, thus notifying 39.97 acres land of villages Saha, Dhakola, Tepla, Jawaharghar and Bihta, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala. As per the provisions of the Act of 1894, the same was published in the Official Gazette of the State Government vide notification No.32/5/2013-41B1 dated 27.10.2014 and also in two daily newspapers namely, "Indian Express"
(English) dated 30.10.2014 and "Punjab Kesari" (Hindi) dated 30.10.2014.
As per the provisions of the Act of 1894, an order under Section 7 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 16.03.2015.
19. The award of the acquired land along with the land of the petitioners was announced on 21.10.2016, and thereunders a compensation amounting to Rs.2,02,734/- became determined qua the share of petitioner No.1 and qua the share of petitioner No.2, compensation amount comprised 8 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -9- in a sum of Rs.2,02,734/- became determined. The (supra) determined compensation amounts were duly tendered at the time of the announcement of award and further became deposited in the Court, on 17.05.2018. Thus, the petitioners are at liberty to receive the same.
Submissions of the petitioners
20. The petitioner(s) submits, that the action of the Government in acquiring 39.97 acres of land out of intended 43.09 acres of land, and therebys releasing 3.12 Acre land, while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, thus clearly establishes, that respondents No. 1 to 3 rather had acted as per their own choice, but without considering the report of Land Acquisition Collector, who had thus not recommended the release of lands, excepting the petitioners' lands, wherebys he had rejected the objections of the other land-losers concerned.
21. He further submits that the respondent No.1 to 3 fell into gross error in acquiring petitioners land/residential house. The said made acquisition is argued to be against the land Land Acquisition Collector's report (Annexure P-3) wherebys the LAC had recommended for the release of the subject properties.
22. He further submits that the residential house of the petitioners when falls in a well developed residential cluster equipped with all basic amenities of life vis-a-vis road (State Highway), electricity, sewerage, water supply as provided by public works health department etc., therebys the petitioners cannot be ousted from their residential premises in the garb of the said petitioners' house subserving a public purpose.
9 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -10-
23. The objections of the petitioners have been considered by the Land Acquisition Collector, and, the relevant paragraphs thereofs become extracted hereinafter.
"Objection No.(IV) The departmental representative stated in his statement that as per policy of the department, pucca structure if any, even constructed prior to the date of notification u/s 4 can be acquired if such structures create a hindrance in materializing the planning of the department by making the payment of reasonable compensation of such structures as per assessment made by the expert departments. As per reports submitted in this context after spot verification by the departmental officials, there is (1) one house consisting of rooms and deep tube-well bore in the land comprising Khasra Nos. 8//26/2, 27 owned by Dr. Madhukar Aggarwal and his wife (in existence about one year prior) (2) one residential house and boundary wall constructed in Khasra No. 11/26/2 MIN (0-16) about two years prior by Shri Mohan Singh and his wife, (3) There is nothing except one abandoned room of tube-well (abandoned) constructed about 20 years prior owned by Sh. Deepak Aggarwal and others in Khasra No.66//2 of Village Tepla, (4) A residential house in Khasra No. 66//6/2,7 owned by Sh. Rangi Ram existing about five years prior, (5) Two separate residential houses one owned by Ramesh seven years prior and 2nd by Smt. Bindu about five months prior to the notification u/s 4 owned by them in Khasra No. 66//16/2 and 15/1 of village Tepla. Shri Rangi Ram has been residing in his house since five years back. Similarly Ramesh and Bindu are also residing in their houses since these have been constructed. In the report of village Saha, one room of 10'x10' size in deteriorated condition owned by Vijay Kumar and Usha Rani and constructed about 5 years back existed in Khasra No. 110//27 (2) one boundary wall in deteriorated condition constructed about 5 years back existed in Khasra No. 108//4 and (3) One room of 12'x15' size constructed about 5 years back existed in normal condition in the land comprising Khasra No. 109//18 owned by Sh. Madan Mohan Datta. In the land of village Bihta, three shops and one boundary wall 10 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -11- constructed about 3 years prior existed in Khasra No. 994/2. It has been reported by the department that there is nothing else more than the ones included in the reports submitted by them. Believing upon the same and in consideration of the situation of these residences at site, it is observed that without acquiring the whole land on which these structures (except one case relating to the residential house of Shri Mohan Singh and his wife existing in Khasra No. 8//26/2 MIN (0-16), it would not be possible for the department to materialize its planning due to non-availability of other remedies with them as such recommendation is made to acquire the same subject to the condition that compensation thereof would be made under the provisions of section 24 to 32 of the New Act (Act 30 Of 2013) and paid accordingly. So far as the residential house owned by Sh. Manmohan Singh and his wife is concerned, it reveals from the scrutiny of the lay-out plan that the metalled road to link the 31 Haryana High Way (i.e. Saha-Shahbad road) has to be constructed in the way of which the said house falls. This house is situated in the cluster of residential/abadi area of the village. Thus, this house is possible to be left if the Government so decides in consideration of the fact that if the road is slightly turned down through the area left for "reserved utilities".
24. For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the petitioners' claim for the subject structures being released from the acquisition rather is untenable inter alia on the following reasons.
25. The subject lands became initially subjected to the launching of acquisition proceedings, through the respectively issued notifications respectively under Section 4 and 6 of the Act of 1894, notification(s) whereof became respectively issued on 23.12.2005 and on 29.12.2006.
26. The said notifications became under challenged through the land-losers concerned, filing writ petitions before this Court. The present land-losers also filed writ petition bearing No.CWP-19293-2008, titled as, 11 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -12- 'Mohan Singh and another V. State of Haryana and others', before this Court. The decision made thereons is re-extracted hereinafter.
"Accordingly, we allow these writ petitions (except CWP No.108 of 2009) qua the petitioners in all the writ petitions, excluding those petitioners who have not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and also those who have accepted compensation for the land under acquisition and quash the impugned notifications. However, liberty shall remain with the State to acquire the land in question, if we need be, as per law."
27. The above made decision on the writ petition filed by the present petitioners has acquired conclusivity, as the challenge thereto as made before the Apex Court rather remained unsuccessful, as the SLP, as became directed thereagainst became dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 18.11.2015.
28. Therefore, the underlinings which emanate from the said conclusive and binding order, are that, the writ petition(s) concerned, became allowed, but the said relief was not endowed vis-a-vis those petitioners, who had not filed objections and who had accepted compensation for the acquired lands.
29. Further liberty also became endowed upon the acquiring authority to yet acquire the subject lands, if required for the requisite public purpose. Therefore, the last sentence i.e. "However, liberty shall remain with the State to acquire the land in question, if we need be, as per law." which occurs in the (supra) extracted operative part of the judgment rendered by this Court on the aforesaid writ petition, has a bearing to the extent, that therebys yet through the (supra) last sentence which occurs in the above said extracted operative part, did yet restrict the land-owners from propagating, that subsequently the acquiring authority be restrained from re-launching 12 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -13- acquisition proceedings. Contrarily, the effect of the said last sentence, is but that, rather liberty became reserved to re-launch acquisition proceedings in respect of all the subject lands, which were covered in the above said writ petitions, thus irrespective of the fact that the challenge of some of the land- losers was allowed, but subject to the land-losers successfully filing objections and also theirs not receiving compensation, as became offered to them.
30. The conclusion, therefrom, is that, there is no bestowment of any right vis-a-vis any of the successful petitioners concerned, to on the basis of the (supra) extracted orders, to estop the respondents from re- drawing or re-launching acquisition proceedings, thus in respect of the entire tracts of land, which became covered within the ambit of the (supra) conclusive decision. Consequently, on the basis of the said decision, the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot contend that there was no valid authorization bestowed upon the acquiring authority to re-launch acquisition proceedings in respect of the subject structures.
31. Ex facie the present petitioners had instituted the instant writ petition bearing CWP-1513-2015, before this Court, and, on the said writ petition the hereinafter extracted orders, thus becomes rendered.
"However, the State shall be at liberty to either initiate fresh proceedings for acquisition of land or negotiate with the landowners for purchasing/ retaining the land in accordance with law, in case the land in question is required for completion of any project or otherwise. The petitioners shall maintain status quo regarding the land in question for a period of six months to enable the State to take decision. All other issues raised in the writ petitions are left open as this Court has not expressed any opinion thereon.
13 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -14- The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly."
32. The (supra) order became challenged by the HSIIDC through the latter instituting SLP(C) No.4229 of 2019, to which Civil Appeal No.3913 of 2024 was assigned subsequently. Through an order of 27.02.2024, made by the Apex Court, the instant lis was remanded to this Court. The relevant paragraphs of the order of remand, as made by the Apex Court, though is extracted hereinabove, but are re-extracted hereinafter.
"4. In view of the aforesaid orders, the appeal is allowed with particular reference to the issue decided alone.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.09.2017 stands set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration of all the other issues on merits that have been raised by the parties in their respective petition(s) in accordance with law.
6. Taking into consideration the long pendency of the proceedings, coupled with the subsequent developments that may have occurred, we request the High Court to make an endeavour to decide these matters within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to state that the status quo as of today shall be maintained by the parties.
7. The appeal is allowed accordingly."
33. Now since the present acquisition proceedings became launched through the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, on 28.10.2013. The said notification became succeeded by a declaration made on 27.10.2014, under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, whereafter the subject award became announced on 21.10.2016, whereins, compensation amount respectively comprised in a sum of Rs.2,02,734/- and in a sum of Rs.2,02,734/- became respectively assessed vis-a-vis both the petitioners.
34. Now, this Court is not required to be determining the validity of the making of the award in terms of paragraph 1 and 2, as carried in the order renderedby the Apex Court in SLP(C) No.4229 of 2019, to which Civil 14 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -15- Appeal No.3913 of 2024 was subsequently assigned, to the extent that whether therebys the determination of compensation amount, as instantly made in terms of the verdict rendered by the Apex Court, in "Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. And others Vs. Deepak Aggarwal and Others" (2022 SCC Online SC 932), rather yet is vitiated on the ground:
a) That since on the date of the making of a declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, thus the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2013") rather came into force.
b) Whether therebys the provisions of sub Section 1 of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 are or are not applicable.
c) Whether if the said provisions borne in the Act of 2013 are applicable or inapplicable.
d) Whether therebys any permissibility becomes endowed to the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, to continue, the proceedings under the Act of 1894 and to pronounce an award in terms of sub Section 1 of Section 24 of the Act of 2013.
35. The reason for stating so is evidently available on a reading of the above extracted paragraph 5, as becomes borne in the order of remand, as made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherebys too, thus the Hon'ble Apex Court has restrained this Court from re-examining and re-evaluating the correctness of applicability of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in "Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. And others Vs. Deepak Aggarwal and Others" (2022 SCC Online SC 15 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -16-
932), thus vis-a-vis the instant subject matter, besides as relates to the (supra) argument. Resultantly, therebys the argument relating to the inapt application of the provisions embodied in sub Section 1 of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 by the Land Acquisition Collector, in his making the subject award, but becomes rendered meaningless.
36. Consequently, this Court is required to be examining the correctness or otherwise of the rejection of the petitioners' objections.
37. Initially though the learned Land Acquisition Collector after considering the objections filed before him, under Section 5A of the Act of 1894, had permitted the release of the lands in question to the present petitioners. The reason which he had assigned was that there can be a change in the layout plan-cum-demarcation, thus for accommodating the subject properties.
38. However, the recommendations, as made by the Land Acquisition Collector for releasing the lands in question became rejected by the competent authority rather through the making of the impugned rejection order. Therefore, the rejection of the recommendations of the Collector wherebys he had proposed for the releasings of the subject properties to the land-losers, on the premise, that if the layout plan is changed, therebys the subject properties can be accommodated, thus but acquires immense worth, as thereins becomes subsumed the proposals favourable to the present petitioners, as became earlier made by the Land Acquisition Collector.
39. The order made by the competent authority whereby dis concurrence was made with the proposals of the Land Acquisition Collector, which were favourable to the present petitioners, does evidently, on a reading of the reply furnished to the writ petition makes therein speakings 16 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -17- that; (a) the subject properties are an integral component of the layout plan- cum-demarcation plan, thus for setting of the development of Industrial Growth Centre, an Integrated Industrial Complex with all basic amenities including housing, commercial, recreational etc in Tehsil Barara, District Ambala; b) the house of the petitioners but forming part of land required for 30 meters wide road.
40. Consequently, the said reasons as made by the competent authority, are well informed reasons, thus banked upon the layout plan, as became prepared by the Engineering Cell of the department concerned. Resultantly, this Court is not required to be required to be examining the correctness of the layout plan, as this Court is not required to, in the exercise of judicial view of the rejection order rather sitting, as an expert over the expertise deployed by the Engineering Cell of the Department concerned, in the preparation of the layout plans, whereins, becomes pronounced the necessity of subjecting the subject properties to acquisition, as they are required to be sub serving an eminent public purpose.
41. Therefores, and moreovers, though the subject structures as raised over the lands, though became raised prior to the institution of the instant writ petition, but when they became so raised, after this Court passing an order on 16.12.2010, wherebys liberty became reserved to the acquiring authority to re-acquire the subject lands, if required for subserving the public purpose.
42. If so, the proposal favourable to the present petitioners, as made by the Land Acquisition Collector, when ultimately also tinkers with the layout plan which otherwise he could not do so, given he is also not being an 17 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:018257-DB CWP-4504-2015 (O&M) -18- expert, therebys the rejection of the said proposals by the competent authority are to be concluded to be well made rejections.
43. Since, reiteratedly for the reasons (supra), thus the instantly made rejection order, when candidly understates the necessity of the subject constructions, thus eminently requiring theirs yet subserving the requisite public purpose. Therefore, if this Court yet accepts the objections (supra), filed by the present petitioners, therebys the relevant public purpose, thus would become direly jeopardized, besides therebys rather than public interest but individualistic interest of the present petitioners would become untenably subserved.
44. Resultantly, this Court does not also deem it fit, and, appropriate to order for the subject lands being released from acquisition, hence the instant petition stands dismissed.
45. However, the case of the petitioners be considered for rehabilitation in terms of the relevant policy.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
5.02.2025 (VIKAS SURI)
Ithlesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
18 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 08-02-2025 11:23:44 :::