Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Yadav And Another vs The State Of Haryana And Ors on 4 September, 2012
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 4.9.2012
CWP No. 17225 of 2012
Ramesh Yadav and another ......Petitioners
vs.
The State of Haryana and ors .....Respondents
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: - Mr. A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the notice under Section 12(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') and the Award No. 25 dated 8.8.2012.
Petitioners have purchased the land measuring 161.11 square yards by sale deed dated 10.3.2010. The land, the subject matter of purchase, purchased by the petitioners was in fact the part of the notification dated 16.11.1981 under Section 4 of the Act intending to acquire land including land purchased by petitioner. Thereafter, notifications dated 2.1.1984 and 19.1.1984 were issued under Section 6 of the Act. Such notifications became the subject matter of challenge on behalf of the land owners including the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. A Civil Writ Petition No. 694 of 1984 was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the -2- petitioners. The said petition was dismissed by this Court on 16.7.1985. The order of this Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The matter was remitted to this court. Thereafter, this Court admitted the writ petition and also stayed the dispossession of the petitioners on 2.2.1993 for final hearing after the remand orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. During the pendency of the petition, State of Haryana issued another notification dated 8.12.2000 under Section 4 of the Act for development of Information and Technology Park and other allied uses. The said notification was accompanied with a notification under Section 17 of the Act. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 15.02.2001. But the said land was de-notified by way of a publication issued under Section 48 of the Act on 6.11.2001 (Annexure P-8).
The assertion of the petitioners is that they have purchased the land in question after making inquiries and being satisfied that the acquisition of land stand withdrawn vide the notification dated 6.11.2001. It is also pointed out that the factum of such withdrawal of notification is mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 (Annexure P-9). It is contended that the petitioners have raised construction over the land purchased by them. It is also pointed out that the Civil Writ petition No. 694 of 1984 came up for hearing on 1.12.2001, but the same was dismissed as having become infructuous. The order of the court in the earlier petition read as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners states that during the pendency of this writ petition, the notifications which are under challenge in this writ petition were superseded by another notifications and even from the subsequent notifications, land of the petitioners had been de-notified.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the above, this writ petition be dismissed as having become infructuous.
Ordered accordingly.-3-
If the information given by learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be incorrect, she is at liberty to get the writ petition revived".
It is pointed out that suddenly, the petitioners have received a notice under Section 12 of the Act dated 13.6.2012. Such notice is said to be illegal as the publication of the subsequent notification under Section 4 of the Act has the effect of supersession of the earlier notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 16.11.1981. In support of such assertion, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in (1988) 3 Supreme Court Cases 294, Raghunath and ors vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and find no merit in the present petition. In the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners in Raghunath's case (supra), notification under Section 4 of the Act was initially published on 22.6.1982 followed by a declaration under Section 6 dated 15.3.1983. The Writ Petition was filed challenging the acquisition but during the pendency of the writ petition, notification under Section 6 of the Act was withdrawn for the reason that the landowners were not given opportunity to file objections. Thereafter, the petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 4.4.1985.
The petitioners therein filed another writ petition, wherein, it was argued that the withdrawal of the earlier declaration dated 15.3.1993 has the automatic effect of also rendering the notification under Section 4 dated 22.6.1982 ineffective and infructuous. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court and the appeal against the said judgment has also remained unsuccessful. During the hearing before the High Court, it was argued that some part of the land has been notified again in another -4- notification under Section 4 of the Act. In view of the said fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: -
9. Before concluding we must refer to one circumstance which was brought to our notice by learned counsel for the petitioners and which has also been noticed in the judgment of the High Court. It appears that, between the date of withdrawal of the earlier writ petition (namely, August 23, 1983) and the issue of the second declaration under Section 6 (namely, April 4, 1985), the government had issued a fresh notification under Section 4 for the acquisition of certain lands. The lands in the two notifications under Section 4 do not completely overlap but it appears that some fields are common in both. No declaration under Section 6 appears to have been issued in furtherance of the second notification under Section 4 when the High Court heard the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, at least in respect of such of the lands comprised in the Section 4 notification dated June 22, 1982 as are also covered by the subsequent notification under Section 4, it is legitimate to infer that the State Government has superseded the earlier notification by the later one.
This contention is clearly well founded. We would, therefore, like to make it clear that in respect of the lands covered by the first notification under Section 4 which are also covered by, or comprised in, the second notification under Section 4, further proceedings regarding acquisition should be taken, in accordance with law, only in pursuance of the later notification and the proceedings initiated in respect of such lands by the first notification dated June 22, 1982 should be deemed to have been superseded."
We find that the said observations do not help the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. The supersession of the first notification is in view of the valid, subsisting and subsequent acquisition. In the present case, the second acquisition proceedings have not been completed. If the proceedings are completed, only then the question of supersession of the earlier notification would arise. But where, the acquisition proceedings have been aborted, it cannot be said, that earlier acquisition proceedings are rendered infructuous.
The petitioners are the purchasers of the land during the pendency of the writ petition challenging the acquisition proceedings under -5- Section 4 of the Act dated 16.11.1981 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 2.1.1984 and 19.1.1984. The purchase of land by the petitioners suffers from the doctrine of lis pendence. The rights of the petitioners are not larger than the rights of the vendor.
Therefore, we find that there is no supersession of the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act, the subject matter of challenge in the earlier writ petition by the vendors of the petitioners.
We do not find any merit in the present petition.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 4.9.2012 preeti