Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

[10]. Respondent No. 11 - Builder-cum-Developer immediately sent copies of the Licences to the Estate Officer, HUDA vide letters like dated 10th October, 2006, indicating that HUDA authorities need not take any further step in respect of the subject land [acquired for HUDA] and on receipt of this information, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak also without any loss of time sent a communication dated 12th October, 2006 to the Director, Urban Estates Department, Haryana informing that respondent No.11 - Builder has deposited various CWP No. 19096 of 2011. ::-6-::

"8. That the possession of the land of the petitioner was handed over to Estate Officer, HUDA on the date of award i.e. 06.04.2005. Entry to this effect has been made in the Rapat Rojnamacha vide No. 297 dated 06.04.2005 of village Pehrawar, No. 385 dated 06.04.2005 of village Kheri Sadh and No. 418 dated 06.04.2005 of Garhi Bohar".

CWP No. 19096 of 2011. ::-8-::

[15]. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak has filed a separate written statement on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 5 objecting against the maintainability of this petition after the announcement of the Award. The acquisition process is said to have been carried out strictly in accordance with law. Relying upon the decision in M/s Anand Buttons Limited Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2005 SC, 565, it is claimed that even if erroneous exemption has been granted to some parties from the acquisition, it would not arm the petitioners to seek similar relief.

Haryana Urban Development [Disposal of Land and Buildings] Regulations, 1978 relates to fixation of tentative price/premium for the sale or lease of the land/building by allotment and it says that "the tentative price/premium for the disposal of land or building by the Authority shall be such as may be determined by the authority taking into consideration the cost of land, estimated cost of development, cost of buildings and other direct and indirect charges, as may be determined by the Authority from time to time" [Emphasis applied]. There is, thus, no element of profiteering in the allotment price to be determined by HUDA for its developed sites. HUDA as per its consistent policy allots residential plots through Draw of Lots, while commercial and institutional sites are sold by way of public auction. HUDA Regulations do provide reservation of residential plots for various categories like the Economically Weaker Section, Scheduled Castes, Defence Personnel, Government Employees, Differently-abled persons etc. It is, thus, inarguable that so long as the purpose of acquisition in the instant case was for the development of two residential Sectors in the Urban Area of Rohtak by HUDA, such 'notified public purpose' fell within the ambit of Section 3[f][ii] and [iv] of 1894 Act.