Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashok Kumar & Another vs State Of Haryana & Others on 11 November, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 5620 of 2008
Date of Decision : 11.11.2013
Ashok Kumar & another
.......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & others
...... Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present : Mr. R.S. Sihota, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Ashok K. Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate,
Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate,
Mr. Sumeet Sheokand, Advocate for
Mr. R.S. Tacoria, Advocate,
Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
(in CWP No. 7960 of 2008),
for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate
for 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. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of 38 cases i.e. CWP Nos. 5620, 6257, 7080, 7195, 7441, 7463, 7464, 7502, 7510, 7660, 7719, 7724, Satyawan 7736, 7774, 7780, 7789, 7817, 7819, 7822, 7823, 7914, 7933, 7951, 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 5620 of 2008 2 7960, 8029, 8161, 8269, 8499, 8512, 8641, 8897, 9387, 9494, 9800, 10036, 10118, 12453 & 17698 of 2008 wherein the notifications dated 15.6.2006 and 14.6.2007 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereby residential houses/buildings/ structures along with vacant land/plots owned by the petitioners have been acquired for the purpose of development and its utilization as Transport Nagar, Sector 21, Palwal.
2. One of the principal grievance of the petitioners is that the small pieces of land converted as residential plots which have been utilised by them for residential/ allied purposes, namely, the same purpose for which the land is sought to be acquired, hence, no public purpose would be served.
3. There is no serious dispute that in view of the public policy dated 26.10.2007, the structures/houses which were found in existence at the time of issuance of Section 4 Notification are liable to be released from acquisition along with proportionate open space.
4. The petitioners further contend that a complete residential colony has been set up by them with all basic amenities and acquisition thereof would be detrimental to public interest instead of serving any public cause. It was in this factual back drop that vide order dated 27.09.2013, we directed the official respondents to re- survey the acquired area and consider the desirability of releasing the structures/residential houses/plots in accordance with the above Satyawan 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 5620 of 2008 3 stated Government policy.
5. The State policy dated 26.10.2007 contemplates as follows :-
"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) Any religious institution or any building owned by community will also be considered for release.
5) xx xx xx xx
6) xx xx xx xx"
(emphasis applied)
6. The afore-stated policy has been modified on 24.1.2011 but the modified version has no direct bearing on the point in issue.
7. The above stated 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, relevant extract of which reads as Satyawan 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 5620 of 2008 4 follow:-
"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 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......"
(emphasis applied)
8. It may be relevant to mention at this stage that in the connected matter which is also disposed of vide separate order of even date passed in CWP No. 3824 of 2008 (Smt. Abha Jain & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.), a letter dated 20.12.2006 (Annexure P-7, which includes these cases as well) has been produced whereby the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Palwal had informed the Land Acquisition Collector that there are residential houses over 80% of the khasra numbers sought to be acquired and all the basic amenities like roads, sewerage, water supply, electricity have been provided to the residents of these houses by the Government Departments/Agencies.
9. The matter has been consequently re-examined by the Satyawan 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 5620 of 2008 5 officers at the level of District Administration in the light of the facts noticed above and the directions issued on 27.09.2013 learned Sr. DAG, Haryana, on instructions from officers i.e. Mr. Rajinder Gahlot, Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad and Mr. Ravi Sihag, District Town Planner, Palwal, states that though large scale constructions comprising residential houses have been made on the acquired land, but the decision to release such structures as per the policy dated 26.10.2007 along with proportionate open space can be taken by State Government only.
10. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the admitted facts, we are of the view that State Government can not be permitted to adopt pick and choose in giving effect to its own policy decision. The policy decision must be given effect uniformly. We, thus, direct the State Government that wherever there exists a structure raised before issuance of Section 4 notification, such house/building/structure along with proportionate open area shall be released in consonance with the above mentioned policy. We further direct if the left out land of the petitioners cannot be utilised for any bona-fide public purpose, in that event, the desirability of releasing such land shall also be considered save in a case where it is required for public utilities like Sector road, sewerage, green belt etc. While the Land Acquisition Collector and the District Town Planner shall submit their report to the State Government within two months, appropriate Satyawan 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 5620 of 2008 6 release orders shall be passed by the State Government within two months thereafter. Till then, the parties shall continue to maintain status quo. We clarify that if there arises any dispute with regard to the tittle, identity of khasra numbers or identity of the owner/interested person of a property, the petitioners shall render full assistance to the Land Acquisition Collector and the District Town Planner along with necessary documents for verification.
Disposed of.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE (SURINDER GUPTA) JUDGE
11.11.2013 'Satyawan' Satyawan 2013.12.09 10:55 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document"
High Court Chandigarh