Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satya Narain Bhalothia And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 November, 2010
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Augustine George Masih
C.M. No. 15979 of 2010
CWP No. 11020 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M. No. 15979 of 2010 and
CWP No. 11020 of 2010
Date of decision: 11.11.2010
Satya Narain Bhalothia and others
..... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate,
for HUDA.
***
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
C.M.No. 15979 of 2010 C.M. is allowed. Replication is taken on record. CWP No. 11020 of 2010 This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to a notification dated 24.12.2007 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') proposing to acquire Land C.M. No. 15979 of 2010 CWP No. 11020 of 2010 2 measuring 246.49 Acres. Further challenge has been made to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 23.12.2008 ordering acquisition of 176.29 Acres of land.
It is contention of counsel for the petitiioners that despite policy of the State Government, their constructed godowns were ordered to be acquired.
Counsel for the parties heard.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have not filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act. When notice of motion was issued on 12.08.2010, following order was passed by this Court:-
" It is an admitted fact that, the petitioners have not filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) within the stipulated period. Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioners, by placing reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh and others, (2000) 7 SCC 296, argued that the purpose, for which the land was proposed to be acquired, was not a public purpose. It was only mentioned in the notice that land is going to be acquired for 'special zone' in Sector 21, Rohtak.
Notice of motion for 29.9.2010.
On our asking Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. Counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply four copies of the writ petition to Ms.Monga and two copies to C.M. No. 15979 of 2010 CWP No. 11020 of 2010 3 Mr.Sharma respectively, during course of the day.
In terms of the order passed by this Court on 18.6.2010, it is directed that status quo regarding possession as exists at the spot today be maintained till further orders."
Faced with a handicap that the petitioners have not filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act, an attempt was made to save the acquisition on the ground that the purpose, for which it is going to be acquired, is not a public purpose. It is evident that the land was proposed to be acquired for 'special zone' in Sector-21, Rohtak.
It is case of the petitioners that no specific purpose, for which land was acquired, has been mentioned in the notifications mentioned above, as such the acquisition cannot be sustained.
In response to notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 through the Land Acquisition Collector. In para No.15 of the reply, it has been stated as under:-
"15. The the contents of para No. 15 of the civil writ petition are wrong and denied. It is relevant to mention here that petitioner has never filed the objections u/s 5-A of the Act but land measuring 6 kanal falling in Rec/Illa No. 47//16,17 of the petitioner has been released u/s-5A of the Land Acquisition Act because of constructed area and outside the demarcation line of the road. Balance area of the petitioner comes under road as per the planning submitted by the DTP Rohtak hence cannot be released."C.M. No. 15979 of 2010
CWP No. 11020 of 2010 4
To show that the land can be acquired for a special zone, reliance has been placed upon a notification dated 18.09.2007 notified at the instance of Town and Country Planning Department, State of Haryana under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (Punjab Act 41 of 1963), in which special zone has been defined as under:-
"Special Zone:
An area of 68 hectares (app.) has been reserved for special zone, which shall include recreation and entertainment, commercial, residential (group housing and plotted) and institutional uses in Sector 21."
Vide the above notification, Revised Draft Development Plan for Rohtak was published.
We feel that in the notified draft plan, special zone is clearly defined, which includes recreation and entertainment, commercial, residential (group housing and plotted) and institutional purposes. If that is so, contention of the counsel for the petitioners that as the purpose, for which land was acquired, was not specified, the impugned notifications be quashed, is liable to be rejected.
Not only as above, as the petitioners have not filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act, which, as per evidence on record, published in the two newspapers and also in the locality, their writ petition cannot be entertained in view of ratio of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater C.M. No. 15979 of 2010 CWP No. 11020 of 2010 5 Bombay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698, M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 and Swaran Lata etc. vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664.
By filing this writ petition, an attempt was made to mislead this Court. In the writ petition, it is nowhere stated that area measuring 6 Kanal, over which the construction exists, has been left out of acquisition. In the reply filed, it is specifically stated that land measuring 6 Kanal falling in Khasra No. 47//16, 17 has been left out of acquisition. It is further stated that some construction of the petitioners, which falls in the road alignment, has been ordered to be acquired.
If that is so, we feel that sufficient relief already stood granted to the petitioners. At this stage, no interference is necessary.
Dismissed.
( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE November 11, 2010 pj