Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that the petitioners' land measuring 3 bighas 9 biswas (10435 sq. yds.) which was being used for gaushala, dairy farming, mushroom farming and residence was sought to be acquired with mala fide intention. The petitioners pleaded that they had been in use, occupation and enjoyment of the said land in question for the purpose of running a Gaushala and looking after several unclaimed cattle and providing them with medical needs and attention. That part of land was also being used for running a dairy from which the petitioners were earning their livelihood. Apart from the said activities, the petitioners have various Samadhis and small temples on the said land which were also present and the petitioners were emotionally and sentimentally attached to the said Samadhis and temples as the same are in the remembrance of their forefathers and elders. The said area was bounded with boundary wall with a height of 10-15 feet and there were other pucca built up various structures existing for the purpose of carrying the aforesaid activities as well as for residence purpose of the petitioners themselves and their workers which were in existence since 2001 onwards. The State had declared the area around the land as a controlled area in the year 2003. As per the proposed draft development of 2021 which was prepared on 21.01.2003, the land was shown as dairy farm. In the final development plan of 2021, the land was shown as being used for industrial purpose including service and industry which also included dairy farms as per the plan prepared on 07.06.2004 (Annexure P-4). The respondents, however, issued notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring the land measuring 36 acres 3 kanals for the purpose of construction of a new bus stand of Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana on 25.03.2010. In pursuance to the said notification, the petitioners submitted detailed objections under Section 5A of the Act taking various grounds apart from the fact that the petitioners were using the land for mushroom farming, dairy and Gaushala and it could be exempted and would not create any hurdle or inconvenience for the proposed project. In pursuance to the objections filed, the LAC had heard the objections and inspected the site and recommended release of the land of the petitioners (Annexure P-7). Thereafter, the State Government had constituted a Committee of three officers namely LAC, General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak and General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Jhajjar to evaluate and consider the actual viability of the ancestral land of the petitioners for the purpose of construction of new bus stand. The said Committee had recommended for exemption from acquisition on the ground that there would be no hurdle or inconvenience in construction of the new bus stand and workshop. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was thereafter issued on 22.02.2011 and the petitioners later on came to know in view of the information received under Right to Information Act, 2005 that in spite of the recommendation of the LAC, which was accepted till the Financial Commissioner, the same were reversed subsequently by taking a fresh report from the Deputy Commissioner. The said acquisition was mindless and with mala fide intention to harm the petitioners and the respondents had not applied their mind while choosing the particular land for construction of a new bus stand. The petitioners had received two development plans for 2021 in which the land in and around the petitioners were shown for different purposes. In one plan the area was shown for industrial purposes including the service industry and in the other, the area was divided in two parts, industry and transport. The area belonging to the petitioners had been shown as industrial. The area in question was under the National Capital Region (NCR) and as per the provisions of the National Capital Region Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NCR Act'), the State of Haryana being a participating State, was required to get the development plan approved from the competent authority. The petitioners have taken specific objections under Section 5A of the Act that no such approval had been taken and, therefore, the entire acquisition proceedings for the purpose of construction of bus stand and workshop were in violation of the said provisions. The petitioners had filed a separate petition before the Member Secretary, National Capital Region Planning Board, New Delhi for taking appropriate action for non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. The respondents were supposed to have taken the consent and concurrence of the acquisition from the Municipal Council, Bahadurgarh, which is a separate body under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and was directly affected by the planning of the city and their consent and concurrence was mandatory in view of Article 243W of the Constitution of India and the Twelth Schedule. The acquisition of land which was earmarked for cattle grazing as per the Jamabandi and as per the wajab-ul-urz of Bahadurgarh revenue estate was included in the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and it was not permissible in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 2011 (SLP No. 3109 of 2011) and amounted to contempt of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The LAC was the only quasi judicial authority and competent authority to hear the objections under Section 5A of the Act and thus, the petitioners were aggrieved on the ground that the acquisition was a mala fide act and a colourable exercise of statutory power in the name of the development and public purpose. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed challenging the said acquisition and also levelling allegation that since petitioner no. 1 remained as Chairman of the Municipal Council, Bahadurgarh from 2004 to 2009 and belonged to the opposition party (I.N.L.D.), the land of the petitioners was specifically included and was politically motivated so as to cause financial loss and embarrassment and to lower down the reputation of the petitioner no. 1 in his own constituency amongst his supporters.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents no. 1, 3 and 6, it was pleaded that the objections filed against the acquisition of land for construction of bus stand of Bahadurgarh were taken into consideration and the site in question was got re-examined/re-inspected by the Committee comprising of Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar, Sub Divisional Collector (Civil) Jhajjar, District Town Planner, Jhajjar and District Revenue Officer, Jhajjar. The Committee, in its report dated 17.02.2011, recommended the acquisition of land and the objections filed by the petitioners were duly considered and rejected by the Government vide letter dated 21.02.2011. The Government had not released an inch of land from the said acquisition and the land of the petitioners fell in the middle of the acquired land and could not be released. Moreover, some of the petitioners were using it as a dairy in which tin shed was constructed after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the Gaushala and school were not existing when the site was inspected on 16.02.2011 and, therefore, the land of the petitioners could not be released. As per report dated 17.02.2011, there was no evidence regarding the existence of school and Gaushala and the LAC, Jhajjar was one of the Members of the Committee who inspected the site on 16.02.2011 and, therefore, his earlier recommendations made were not relevant and the subsequent report made under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner was relevant. The petitioners had made construction at the site which was under the Controlled Area Act, 1963 and notices had already been issued by the competent authority for removal of the same. The petitioners had constructed three Samadhis and two temples measuring 11' x 13' size just to avoid the acquisition of land and the constructions made fell within the green belt against the provisions of Controlled Area Act, 1963. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagpal Singh's case (supra) was not applicable in the present case as the facts of the present case were different. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present writ petition may be dismissed since the acquisition was in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

acquisition. The petitioners had raised the construction of three Samadhis and two temples of 11' x 13' size so as to avoid acquisition and the entire land of khasra No. 1958/25Min fell in the middle of the bus stand to be constructed at Bahadurgarh. The land in question had been acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Act and as per the development plan of Bahadurgarh town finalized by Town & Country Planning Department independently. The development plan (Annexure P-15) was the final development plan of the Bahadurgarh town.

7. The challenge in this writ petition filed by 74 petitioners is also to the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act mentioned in the connected writ petition. The plea taken is that the LAC had recommended the release of the land of the private respondents even though there was no Gaushala, school and Samadhi and thus, there was discrimination inter se the land owners. It was pleaded that in response to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the petitioners had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act, but no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act had been issued. The land of the petitioners was fertile land but was being acquired whereas the land belonging to influential persons and close relatives of Rajinder Singh Joon, Local MLA had been left out. Reference was made to the site plan showing the land which had been left out and it was alleged that by setting up of the bus stand in the land of the petitioners, the malafides of the political class was apparent. The petitioner no. 1 was an active politician of Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) party and had remained twice as Municipal Councilor of Municipal Council, Bahadurgarh and Chairman of Municipal Council, Bahadurgarh. He was also Ex-MLA in the years 1996 and 2000 but had lost in the election of 2005. Accordingly, allegation was made that firstly security had been given to him and then withdrawn and, therefore, the private respondents no. 9 and 10 were acting with mala fide intention and to acquire the land. The objections filed under Section 5-A had been dealt with in a selective and elective manner and the land of respondent no. 9 which was vacant and having no Gaushala, school on the said land neither any dairy farm, mushroom farm or temple or Samadhi had been wrongly exempted. The report dated 03.02.2011 was referred to, to show that the respondents were bent upon releasing the land of the private respondents for the reasons best known to them. There was no Gaushala being run at the spot and cows had been collected from Gaushala, Jhajjar in order to take photos to get the land released. The acquisition was not in accordance with the policy framed by the respondents regarding the agricultural land and thus sought to be challenged on the ground of discrimination.