CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12139 OF 1990(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 2 , 2011. Parties Name Anand Singh ...PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and another ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Ms.Dilraj Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. Jasbir Singh, J. JUDGMENT Petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) on October 15, 1979 (P-1). Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on September 8, 1980, ordering final acquisition of land owned by the petitioner. Still further Award passed on December 23, 1981, is also under challenge. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12139 OF 1990(O&M) -2- As per record, 199 Kanals and 12 Marlas of land was sought to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for construction of Godown and extension of Grain Market at Madlauda, tehsil Panipat. After noting the objections filed by the land owners, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued to acquire 190 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land. Award was passed on December 23, 1981. This writ petition was filed in the year 1990. At this belated stage, in view of ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swarn Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, probably this writ petition cannot be entertained. Be that as it may, without taking into consideration the above mentioned handicap of the petitioner, we proceeded to hear the writ petition on merits. It is primary contention of counsel for the petitioner that when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, proper proclamation was not done in the village, which amounts to violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 4 of the Act and as such acquisition cannot be sustained. Upon notice, reply was filed, wherein it was stated that when Award was passed in the year 1981, possession of the land was taken over and delivered to the beneficiary department, i.e., Market Committee, Madlauda. The amount of compensation was deposited with the Collector, which is lying undisbursed. The petitioner may receive the same. It is further submitted that publication of the notice under Section 4 of the Act and issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act were done as per provisions of the Act. It was further stated that the petitioner had filed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12139 OF 1990(O&M) -3- objections under Section 5-A of the Act against the proposed acquisition, which were considered. During pendency of this writ petition by moving an application, the petitioner brought on record a copy of the letter dated July 29, 2009, issued by the office of Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board at Panchkula, in which it was stated that possession of the land in dispute was not taken over by the Department and the land is situated outside the boundary wall constructed by the Market Committee. Taking note of above said fact, following order was passed by this Court on December 17, 2010: “ In this case, land was acquired way back in the year 1979. Award was passed on 23.12.1981. This writ petition was filed in the year 1990. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, it is specifically stated that possession of the land was taken over and handed over to the Market Committee on the date of passing of the award. Amount of compensation was also deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector. Record further reveals that vide order dated 11.12.1990, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. By moving an application, a copy of the letter dated 29.7.2009 has been placed on record, in which the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula has intimated the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Agriculture Department that possession of the land was not taken and it is situated outside the boundary CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12139 OF 1990(O&M) -4- wall constructed by the Market Committee. We are surprised with the contradictory stand taken in that letter to the stand taken in the written statement. It is also not clear as to under what circumstances, there was an occasion with the Chief Administrator to intimate the above said fact to the Financial Commissioner. Whether before writing above said letter, any demarcation was done at the spot. If possession of the land was not taken then definitely, a wrong stand was taken when written statement was filed. Under the circumstances, we direct the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula to file an affidavit, stating as to how letter written by him on 29.7.2009 has originated. It be explained as to whether any demarcation was got done or report was taken from the field staff before writing that letter. If possession was not taken at the time when award was passed, it be stated as to why it was so stated in the written statement filed. Affidavit be filed within seven days from today.” In response thereto, an affidavit of Dr. Avtar Singh, IAS, Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula, has been put on record , a reading of which indicates that the petitioner made a representation on October 13, 2008, with a prayer that his land be released from acquisition. On that letter, recommendation was made by the authorities below to release his land. However, ultimately it was decided on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12139 OF 1990(O&M) -5- December 17, 2010, by the competent authority that the land in question is needed for extension of the Grain Market and as such it cannot be released. It is further stated that in fact possession of the land in question was taken over and delivered to the Market Committee, Madlauda after acquisition. Mutation was also entered in the revenue records on June 18, 1982. However, thereafter it appears that the wall constructed around the acquired land was demolished by the land owners including the petitioner and they entered into forcible possession of the land, regarding which acquisition had already become final. To say so, reference was made to the two letters (Annexures E and F), written by the Executive Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Karnal to the Superintending Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board at Panipat and also by the Superintending Engineer,Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board at Karnal to Chief Engineer, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board at Panchkula. Respectively. Reading of the letters written on February 8, 1991, and November 4, 1991, clearly indicates that the boundary wall was demolished by the land owners including the petitioner. The cost of the dismantled portion of the boundary wall was assessed at Rs. 39242/-. It appears that in the year 2008, the petitioner in connivance with the Field Officers got a favourable report stating that the land is lying outside the boundary wall and also that it is not suitable for the purpose for which it was acquired. It is apparent on the record that the 'land use' of this land is clearly mentioned in the layout plan and as per the decision taken on December 17, 2010, the land is still needed for a public purpose. In view of facts, mentioned above, we feel that the land at this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12139 OF 1990(O&M) -6- stage cannot be released from acquisition. It is further contention of counsel for the petitioner that the proper proclamation of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was not done in the village. By stating as above, it was argued that on account of that, the petitioner failed to lay challenge to the acquisition at a proper time. We feel that the argument raised is liable to be rejected. Copy of an entry made in the Roznamcha Vakiati of locality Halqa Madlauda (P2) clearly shows that on October 16, 1979, Mushtri Munadi in the village was got done by the concerned Patwari. The proclamation was got done through Shri Buland c/o Dharam Chand, to whom Rs. 6/- were paid towards his charges. The very fact that the petitioner had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act to the proposed acquisition indicates that there was a proper proclamation in the village. It is clearly stated so in the reply, to which replication has not been filed to controvert the above said fact. The acquisition proceedings were very much within the knowledge of the petitioner. He kept mum, allowed the grass to grow under his feet and after about 9 years of passing of an Award, he filed this writ petition. In view of facts, mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 2 , 2011. DKC CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12139 OF 1990(O&M) -7-