In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 19168 of 2006 Date of Decision: December 12, 2008 Bir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing lay out plan of Sector 15, Phase-I, Jagadhri (Annexure P-10), prepared by the Department of District Town and Country Planning, Jagadhri-respondent No. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though in the notification dated 2.5.2001 (P-8) issued under Section 4 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 and declaration dated 30.4.2002 (P-9) issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) the land belonging to him was not included but the respondents have included his land in the lay out plan for Sector 15, Phase-I, Jagadhri, erroneously. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased 7 Biswa land, comprised in Khewat No. 170, Khatoni No. 275, Khasra No. 561, situated in village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, vide registered sale deed dated 20.7.1981. On 21.4.1987, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for acquiring 250.54 acres of land falling under the revenue estates of village Garhi Mundon (Hadbast No. 408) and Tejli (Hadbast No. 409), Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala (now in District Yamunanagar) for the public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of land as residential area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (P-1). Subsequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 2.4.1988 and award was announced in respect of 117.68 acres of land on 17.4.1990. The land belonging to the petitioner was also acquired. 3. Some of the land owners challenged notification dated 21.4.1987 and declaration dated 2.4.1988 by filing various writ petitions in this Court including C.W.P. No. 3269 of 1990 (Sukhdev Sharma and others v. State of Haryana. In all 22 writ petitions are stated to have been filed. The bunch of aforementioned writ petitions was allowed of by the learned Single Judge by quashing the declaration under Section 6 (P-2), vide judgment and order dated 2 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 29.9.1992 (P-3). After quashing of declaration under Section 6, the respondent State did not take any step for acquiring the land. The petitioner has, thus, claimed that the land belonging to him could not be deemed to have been acquired although he has not filed any petition on the rationale that if acquisition proceedings have been quashed then it cannot remain confined to those who have filed the writ petitions. 4. It is also pertinent to notice here that before passing of the judgment dated 29.9.1992, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.4.1990, in respect of land measuring 117.68 acres. A number of references under Section 18 of the Act were preferred by the land owners including the present petitioner and the learned Additional District Judge also enhanced the compensation vide order dated 18.11.1991, which was disbursed amongst the beneficiaries. The petitioner had also filed R.F.A. No. 1087 of 1992 for enhancement of compensation in respect of his acquired land. However, the aforementioned appeal was dismissed as having been rendered infructuous, vide order dated 14.5.1993 (P-4) because of quashing of acquisition proceedings. 5. However, the petitioner did not take any action for about three years for depositing back the amount of compensation received by him. On 17.4.1996, an application is stated to have been filed by the petitioner before the Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 3 seeking to deposit the amount of compensation (P-5). It has been asserted that the Collector had issued letters to several persons 3 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 intimating them that the amount of compensation has to be deposited back and after doing the needful clearance certificates were also issued to such persons. In this regard, the petitioner has cited the names of 8 persons in para 15 of the petition. The petitioner has claimed that no action was taken on the application filed by him for deposit of the amount of compensation. 6. Some of the land owners in whose cases the amount of compensation was not received back by the respondents, filed C.W.P. No. 1754 of 2001 in this Court for seeking direction to the respondents to allow them to deposit the money which was received by them as compensation of the acquired land. However, the Division Bench declined to interfere in the matter vide order dated 6.2.2001 (P-6). 7. Another writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 9242 of 1994 was filed by certain land owners with the grievance that despite quashing of declaration under Section 6 of the Act (P-2), the respondents were taking forcible possession of their land on the ground that order dated 29.9.1992 passed in CWP No. 3269 of 1990 would be applicable only in cases of those land owners who had approached this Court challenging the notifications. The aforementioned writ petition was dismissed on 15.7.1994 (P-7) with the following observation: “ In our considered opinion, the Writ Petition is based on misconceived apprehension. The order dated September 19, 1992 passed by this court unequivocally 4 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 struck down the notification under Section 6 of the Act with the striking down of the notification, the entire acquisition proceedings taken by the respondents on the basis of that notification stood nullified. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel that on the basis of misinterpretation of the order of this court, the respondents may dispossess the petitioner. The respondents cannot dispossess the petitioner by taking the view that the judgment of the court was limited to the petitioners in that Writ Petition. If at all, the respondents want to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner and others, the only course open to them is to take fresh steps in accordance with the provisions of the Act. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed.” 8. On 2.5.2001, the respondent State of Haryana again issued another notification under Section 4 of the Act for development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area for Sector 15, Jagadhri (P-8). After hearing objections filed by the land owners under Section 5-A of the Act, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 30.4.2002 whereby 76.30 acres of land has been acquired (P-9). The petitioner has claimed that the land belonging to him comprised in Khasra No. 561 did not form part of the aforementioned notifications (P-8 & P-9). It has been further 5 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 pointed out that amendments have been made in the lay out plan bearing DRG No. DTP(4) 116/2000, dated 16.5.2000, which has been approved by the Chief Administrator, HUDA and conveyed by the Chief Town Planner, HUDA, vide Memo. No. 4533, dated 30.5.2002. The site plan has been placed on record as Annexure P-10. It has been claimed that the land belonging to the petitioner has also been including in the aforementioned lay out plan without there being any acquisition. It has been asserted by the petitioner that the respondents did not allow him to raise construction when he wanted to construct his house in the year 2005. In this regard, the petitioner also made a representation (P-11). 9. The respondents have filed separate written statements. In the written statement filed by the District Town Planner, Yamuna Nagar-respondent No. 4 the stand taken is that a Revised Draft Development Plan-2021 AD for Yamuna Nagar-Jagadhri was published on 9.12.2006 under Section 5 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (R-1). As per the development plan, Sector 15, Jagadhri has been earmarked for residential use. It has been asserted that in the year 2001 it was decided to re-acquire all the vacant pockets of the land which became available as a result of quashing of earlier acquisition proceedings by this Court vide order dated 29.9.1992 in CWP No. 3269 of 1990. Accordingly, notification dated 2.5.2001 under Section 4 of the Act was issued for acquiring 89.7 acres of land falling in the revenue estates of villages Tejli and 6 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 Garhi Mundo. After deciding objections under Section 5-A, land measuring 4.88 acres has been released and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of 84.82 acres of land has been issued on 30.4.2002. It has been further pointed out that releasing of land belonging to the petitioner, which falls in Khasra No. 561, would hamper the planning of the area because over the disputed plot it has been proposed to construct 18 metres wide road, park of block containing 8 marla category plot and part of religious building (R-3). 10. In the written statement filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula, besides making the submissions already noticed in the preceding para, it has been asserted that the petitioner has received the amount of compensation as well as enhanced amount of compensation. The present petition has been filed after a gap of 16 years from the announcement of ward dated 17.4.1990, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. In para No. 14 of the written statement, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount of compensation back within the period stipulated by this Court while deciding RFA No. 1087 of 1992, vide order dated 14.5.1993. Only an application was filed by the petitioner on 17.7.2007 after gap of 13 years, which was rejected and intimation was sent to him vide Memo. No. 9931, dated 20.12.2007 alongwith bank draft No. 426312, dated 16.7.2007, for a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/-. It has been stated that no other application has been ever received which averment has not been controverted by making specific 7 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 averment or by placing on record the receipt of post office. It has been claimed that the land owners who did not deposit the amount of compensation back that land was kept under acquisition and developed by the HUDA, which was already in its possession. It has, however, been admitted that Khasra No. 561 has not been included in the notification dated 2.5.2001 (P-8) issued under Section 4 of the Act and declaration dated 30.4.2002 (P-9) issued under Section 6 of the Act. 11. In the written statement filed on behalf of HUDA- respondent No. 2 it has been asserted that the land belonging to the petitioner, measuring 2 Bighas 15 Biswas, falling in Khasra Nos. 445 and 447, stood acquired as a result of notification dated 21.4.1987, which has been culminated in passing of Award No. 3, dated 17.4.1990. The possession was taken and handed over to HUDA. The present petition has been filed after 19 years of the acquisition, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner never filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act nor challenged the acquisition proceedings. He has received the compensation in respect of the acquired land, therefore, acquisition proceeding qua the petitioner has been finalised. It has been further asserted that quashing of declaration under Section 6 by judgment of this Court dated 29.9.1992 would not help the petitioner in view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Abhey Ram (dead) by LR’s and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 8 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 SC 2564. It has also been submitted that the HUDA has developed 92 acres of land falling in Sector 15 Part-I as per the law out plan by carving out 554 residential plots and commercial booth sites. Some allotments have also been made as per residential housing schemes. The land has been developed by providing basic amenities in the area such as water supply, sewerage, electricity, storm water drainage, parks etc., by incurring expenditure of Rs. 127 lacs on the development works. Third party rights have also accrued. Therefore, prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we find that the claim made by the petitioner does not deserve to be accepted. The issue whether quashing of notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 would result into quashing the acquisition of every parcel of land may be a debatable issue. However, the facts of the present case suggests that despite the quashing of acquisition proceedings by this Court vide order dated 29.9.1992 (P-3), the petitioner failed to avail the benefits flowing from same. The award was announced on 17.4.1990 and even the petitioner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Learned Additional District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector. The petitioner filed an appeal bearing RFA No. 1087 of 1992 in this Court for further enhancement of compensation in respect of his acquired land. When the appeal came 9 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 up for consideration, this Court after noticing the statement of the learned State counsel passed the following order:- “ Mr. Gulab Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has submitted before me that since the writ petition of the petitioner has been allowed and the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has been quashed, the appeal filed by the appellant has become infructuous. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. The appellant would be entitled to have the refund of the court fee affixed in the appeal. He would deposit the amount of compensation if taken by him under the Awards within a period of two months from today.” 13. A perusal of the aforementioned order shows that as early as 14.5.1993, the petitioner was permitted to have the refund of the court fee affixed on the appeal and he was to deposit the amount of compensation under the award within a period of two months from that date. It is undisputed that the petitioner did not take any step within the stipulated period. He sent the amount of compensation on 17.7.2007, after filing of the present petition, which was filed on 2.12.2006, after a period of 13 years of the passing of the order by this Court alongwith the bank draft dated 16.7.2007 for a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/-. The aforementioned application as well as the draft was rejected because the acquisition proceedings in respect of the petitioner had become final. It is not a case where the respondents 10 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 declined to offer the petitioner the acquired land. In fact, on behalf of the respondent State a statement was suffered before this Court on 14.5.1993 in RFA No. 1087 of 1992, stating that the acquisition proceedings have been quashed and the appeal was got dismissed as infructuous, yet the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity. The petitioner has made a false claim that an application was filed by him on 14.4.1996 (P-5). However, the respondent State has specifically denied to have received any application sent by the petitioner except the one filed on 17.7.2007 alongwith bank draft dated 16.7.2007 for a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/-. The petitioner neither deposited the amount as per the direction issued by this court on 14.5.1993, nor invoked the jurisdiction of this Court complaining that the refund of compensation is not being accepted by the respondent State. In such a situation it would be safe to presume for the respondent State that the petitioner has accepted the compensation and has agreed for acquisition of his land. 14. The aforementioned conclusion is inevitable because it is on account of unexplained delay and laches on the part of the petitioner that the land belonging to him has been developed by the HUDA and residential and commercial plots have been carved out. The specific stand of the respondents is that over the land belonging to the petitioner, falling under Khasra No. 561, it has been proposed to construct 18 metres wide road, part of block containing 8 marla category plots and part of religious building (R-3). The HUDA authorities have spent crores of rupees for the development of the 11 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 land and at this stage it cannot be held that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered on 29.9.1992 (P-3). It has to be held that the petitioner has accepted the acquisition by accepting compensation as well as enhanced compensation despite the fact that he was given an opportunity to refund the same. But he has failed to act upon the aforesaid opportunity for 13 years. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for restraining the respondents to proceed with the acquisition of the land and to include the same in the site plan of Sector 15, Part-I, Jagadhari, is wholly misconceived and is, thus, liable to be rejected. 15. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner cannot lose at both ends. At the one hand his land has been acquired and on the other hand his remedy for getting some enhancement of compensation in RFA No. 1087 of 1992 has been foreclosed. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it would serve the ends of justice if we grant permission to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for revival of RFA No. 1087 of 1992. Let the needful be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 12 CWP No. 19168 of 2006 December 12, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 13