Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act, which according to them, had not been decided in accordance with the provisions of the Act as they have not been given personal hearing. Even the Municipal Council, Kharar had objected to the proposed acquisition and in this regard a resolution dated 30.12.2008 was passed by it to the effect that the notification for acquisition be dropped.

Respondents published notification under Section 6 of the Act on 11.9.2009. In this notification large areas of land were released belonging to the Colonizer/developer, namely, Taneja Developers Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as TDI ). Petitioners allege malafides and discrimination on the part of the respondents on the ground that the land belonging to TDI which falls in the mixed land use area has been exempted from acquisition which is vacant whereas the constructed properties of the petitioners have been acquired. Out of the total acquired land of 127.7875 acres of village Ballomajra, 43.2325 acres have been released, in village Baryali, 62.88 acres of land was notified, out of which 26.1088 acres stand released and in village Desumajra, 9.38 acres were acquired, out of which 0.14 acres stand released. Petitioners had sought information from the respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide application dated 26.10.2009 asking for the site plan and map with details of khasra nos./killa nos. of the land under acquisition under Section 4 of the Act, report prepared by Greater Mohali Area Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as GMADA) for requirement of land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, site plan and map with details of khasra nos. and killa nos. prepared by GMADA at the time of issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act for the land acquired i.e. 200.0487 acres, details of the land left out of acquisition, reasons for exempting the land measuring approximately 69.52 acres from acquisition and map of proposed road and mix land use with specific mention of khasra nos/killa nos. were also requisitioned.

Reply has been filed by the respondents wherein the assertions made by the petitioners with regard to violation of the provisions as contained under Section 5-A of the Act stand denied. The fact that the petitioners have construction over the land, which had been done after proper sanction of the maps by the Competent Authority, has not been denied. The ground taken by the petitioners with regard to the discrimination qua TDI-respondent No.6 has been tried to be explained by contending that the said Company had, in pursuance to the Industrial Policy, 2003, sought approval from the State Government for the mega project which was duly approved by the Empowered Committee and the Change of Land Use (for short CLU) had also been applied. Because of the policy of the Government, the land of the TDI was not included in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act. An agreement was entered into between the State and TDI on 26.5.2006 with regard to the establishment of the mega project. It has been stated that the contentions of the petitioners are mis- conceived and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

11.0875 acres of land of TDI falling in Village Baliali and 2.656 acres of land of TDI falling in Village Ballomajra was released, whose CLU was applied on 26.06.2008 but granted on 12.11.2008.
5.068 acres of land of TDI falling in Village Baliali and 1.168 acres of land of TDI falling in Village Ballomajra was released, whose CLU was applied on 22.07.2009 & 10.11.2009 and granted on 01.06.2010. Similarly 0.881 acres of land of TDI falling in Village Ballomajra was released, whose CLU was applied on 14.10.2010 & granted on 12.01.2011.

We have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case.

Pleadings and submissions, when considered, clearly established hostile discrimination practiced by the respondents while releasing the land of TDI whereas similar prayer made by the petitioners has not been accepted. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have constructed their houses/commercial establishments, after obtaining proper sanctions as required under the Statute from the Competent Authority. The land falls in the area which is earmarked for the mix land use. The reason assigned for not including the land of TDI in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act is that the CLU was applied for by TDI and granted with regard to 19.75 acres of land in village Ballomajra prior to Section 4 notification. Qua 11.0875 acres of land of TDI falling in village Baryali and 2.656 acres in village Ballomajra, CLU had been applied for on 26.8.2008 which is prior to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act but was granted on 12.11.2008 which is after the issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act i.e. 16.10.2008. Land measuring 2.76 acres of TDI falling in village Ballomajra was released from acquisition, whose CLU was not applied but it formed part of the Mega Housing Project of TDI approved by the Empowered Committee on 28.10.2005. But the most startling fact which clinches the issue with regard to discrimination is that 5.068 acres of land of TDI falling in village Baryali was not included in notification under Section 6 of the Act, whose CLU was applied on 22.7.2009 and the same was granted only on 1.6.2010 i.e. much after the issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act. Further, 1.168 acres of land of the TDI falling in village Ballomajra was not included in the notification under Section 6 whose CLU was applied for on 10.11.2009, which is even after the issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, for which the CLU was granted on 1.6.2010. Another 0.881 acres of land of TDI falling in village Ballomajra was not included in the notification issued under Section 6 whose CLU was applied on 14.10.2010 and granted on 12.1.2011 which again is much after the Section 6 notification. No further elaboration is required to be made with regard to the conduct of the respondents.