Civil Writ Petition No.3238 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3238 of 2012 Date of Decision:11.10.2012 [ENTITY] Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE [ENTITY] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE [ENTITY] Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. [ENTITY], Sr. D.A.G. Haryana. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? [ENTITY], J.
The challenge in this writ petition is to the notification dated 24.1.2008 (P-2) issued invoking urgency provisions under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT] (for short "the Act") and the notification dated 25.1.2008 (P-3) issued under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] thereof. The award was announced on 24.4.2009 inter alia acquiring land measuring 1 Kanal 3 Marlas of the petitioner for public purpose i.e. development and utilization of residential Sector-34, Faridabad under the [ACT].
The present writ was filed in January 2012 complaining that the acquisition was for the benefit of a private colonizer which cannot be termed as public purpose; the private colonizer has set up a private colony known as Ashoka Enclave, Sector-34, Faridabad under a license granted to it 1969. The Zoning Plan submitted by respondent No.4-the private colonizer was approved by the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana. It is pleaded that the petitioner's land was included in Zoning Plan even though the land was not owned or purchased by the colonizer.
Condition No.6 of the change of land use in the letter dated 10.4.1969 addressed to the Colonizer recited that "so far as small pocket (s) of land in colony is/are concerned your are permitted to purchase the same by private negotiations with the help of Urban Estate Department and in the event of failure to do so, Govt. will acquire at your cost".
It is complained that land was not purchased by the 4th respondent even though this land was got approved as part of plots Nos.100 to 105 of the residential colony known as the Ashoka Enclave Extension-I. It is pleaded that the Colonizer has even sold away plot No.100 vide sale deed dated 10.1.2008 in favour of a third party and the vendees had started raising construction thereon. This led the petitioner to file a civil suit for declaration and possession before the Civil Court at Faridabad which is stated to be pending. The claim is that the subject land is not actually required for public purpose and it is said that fraud has been committed by the 4th respondent.
In response to the present petition, written statement has been filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Faridabad, Haryana. It has been stated that the land in question has been acquired for the development and utilization as Master Plan Road, Green Belt and as part of residential Sector-34, Faridabad on the basis of development plan supplied by District Town Planner, Faridabad. It has been revealed that a co-sharer of the land in question namely [ENTITY] had challenged the impugned notifications in respect of the same khasra numbers claimed by the petitioner in the present petition and that petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10.7.2008 passed in [CASE NUMBER].
This Court had requisitioned the file of aforesaid writ petition. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the khasra number in both the petitions, indeed is the same i.e. Khasra No.25 2/1 (6-8). The factum of dismissal of the writ petition of the co-sharer has not been disclosed in the present petition. The same notifications are impugned in the aforesaid writ petition as in the present one. That petition was dismissed by passing the following order dated 10.7.2008:
"The instant petition is directed against notification dated 24.1.2008 issued under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the [ACT] ( for brevity "the Act") and notification dated 25.1.2008 issued under [SECTION] read with [SECTION] of the Act (Annexures P.1 and P.2 respectively). The public purpose of acquisition as specified in both the notifications is the development and utilization of master plan road, green belt and part of residential Sector 34, Faridabad under the [ACT]. The aforementioned purpose of construction of road and green belt would itself be sufficient to invoke the urgency clause. The notifications have been issued with promptitude without any delay. It cannot be said that the urgency provision has been invoked to stifle inquiry and opportunity of hearing objections under [SECTION] of the Act. Once the land is required for construction of road as per master plan and green belt the acquisition as well as invoking urgency provisions would be justified as also the dispensing with objections under [SECTION] of the Act. We find no merit in the petition. Dismissed."
Learned State counsel has also pointed out that [CASE NUMBER] filed against the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 10.7.2008 stands dismissed vide order dated 12.7.2010. Therefore, the matter stands concluded up to the Supreme Court.
It has also been pointed out that the entire acquisition proceedings have been completed and the possession of the land in question has been taken and handed over to Haryana Urban Development Authority vide rapat No.466 dated 24.4.2009 and mutation bearing No.2934 has also been sanctioned in favour of the Authority.
It has been further highlighted that a similar writ petition bearing [CASE NUMBER] (titled Tej Pal etc. v. [ENTITY] and others) also stands dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.5.2009 which further forecloses the case of the petitioner. In view of the above facts the request for release of land in this petition is further without merit since the award has been announced and possession of the disputed land taken. Reliance has been placed on [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT] in this respect.
A replication has been filed by the petitioner to the written statement of respondent No.3 in which it has been urged that dismissal of the writ petition i.e. [CASE NUMBER] does not bar the present writ petition since the plea in the present petition did not exist in the earlier petition.
A separate written statement has been filed by the Additional Director Urban Estate, Panchkula, Haryana, on behalf of respondent No.1 in defence of the notifications which is on the same lines as those of the other official respondents. It has been pleaded like in the other written statements that after passing of the award, a writ petition is not maintainable in terms of the law laid down in Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. [ENTITY] (1996) 11 SCC 698; [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] and M/s [PRECEDENT].
We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the record and the orders passed in similar cases and are not persuaded to interfere in the acquisition proceedings which have attained finality. The fact that the co-sharer's writ petition has been dismissed restrains us from stepping any further. Besides, the writ petition was filed after the award was announced and possession taken. For the aforesaid reasons the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
( [ENTITY] ) ( [ENTITY] ) JUDGE JUDGE 11.10.2012 rajeev