CWP No. 16258 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP No. 16258 of 2010 Date of Decision: December 08, 2011 Jagdish Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents 2. CWP No. 2072 of 2011 (O&M) Deveinder Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No. 16258 of 2010) Mr. Keshav Kaushi, Advocate Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No. 2072 of 2011) Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for HUDA. Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.11. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. C.M. No. 12323 of 2011 in CWP No. 2072 of 2011 Civil Misc. Application is allowed. Written statement of Estate Officer-II, HUDA, Gurgaon is CWP No. 16258 of 2010 -2- taken on record. Main Case 1. This order shall dispose of two petitions, namely CWP No. 16258 of 2010 and CWP NO. 2072 of 2011 as the common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions. The petitioners in CWP No. 2072 of 2011 prays for quashing order dated 16.09.2010 Administrator Haryana Urban Development Authority Gurgaon, Haryana (for brevity 'HUDA') rejecting the request made by the petitioners for release of their land. A similar request has also been made in the connected petition. It has been alleged that the order rejecting request of the petitioners for release of the land is against the policy framed by the HUDA because at the time of acquisition, the land and the houses belonging to the petitioners which fell on the road and no longer falling on the road after change of alignment of the land. The land of the petitioners would not be covered by the road and therefore, the petitioners assert that the land deserved to be released from acquisition. 2. Few interesting facts need to be noticed. The process of acquisition of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1347 and 1485 (in CWP No. 2072 of 2011) and Khasra Nos. 1486 and 1487 (in CWP No. 16258 of 2010) was initiated on 24.08.2000. The land is situated in the Revenue Estate of village Wazirabad, Gurgaon and the object of the acquisition was the development and utilisation of the residential, commercial and institutional of Sector 57, Gurgaon under the Haryana Development Authority Act, 1977 (for brevity 'the 1977 CWP No. 16258 of 2010 -3- Act'). It was followed by filing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act and eventually resulted in issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). All the details to that effect has been stated in the written statement filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Gurgaon-respondent No.5. The award was announced on 21.07.2003 and the possession was handed over by the State Government to HUDA. 3. The acquisition was earlier challenged in this Court by filing a bunch of petition which included the petitions filed by the petitioners, namely, CWP No. 15476 of 2001 and 16667 of 2001. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 14.11.2003. A copy of the judgment is annexed as P-3A in CWP No. 16258 of 2010. An SLP against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed on 08.10.2004 (P-4) (in CWP No. 16258 of 2010). However, the petitioners were allowed to approach the High court for review. Even RA No. 68 of 2005 (in CWP No. 15476 of 2001) and R.A. 60 of 2005 (in CWP No. 16667 of 2001) were dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 20.05.2005 and 08.07.2005 respectively. 4. On the ground that the alignment of the road has now been changed later on and the land with houses belonging to the petitioners are no longer covered by the road, the instant petitions have been filed citing the violation of the policy of the State Government issued in the year 2007 which provide for release of the constructed area. CWP No. 16258 of 2010 -4- 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that there are many insurmountable hurdles for the petitioners to cross. Firstly, the petitioners have already filed CWP No. 15476 of 2001 and 16667 of 2001. Those petitions were dismissed on 14.11.2003 and even the SLP filed against the Division Bench judgment was also dismissed on 08.10.2004. The liberty granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court for filing review was availed but the review applications were also dismissed on 20.05.2005 and 08.07.2005 respectively. It cannot be accepted that subsequent changes in the planning would arm the petitioners with a new cause of action to challenge the acquisition or to seek release of their land from acquisition unless it is laid down that the State Government or its agencies entrusted with the job of developing the land are debarred from changing the public purpose for the use of land. Even if the public purpose of acquisition is changed that would not arm the petitioners with a fresh cause of action to challenge the acquisition and to seek release of their land. In any case, land free from all incumbrances stood vested in the State after announcement of the award on 21.07.2003. The power conferred by provisions of Section 48 of the Act which deals with release of the land stand exhausted and the present petition filed in the year 2010 and 2011 would not be entertainable and are liable to be rejected on this ground alone. 6. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent has released the land even after CWP No. 16258 of 2010 -5- the award. The argument has remained unsubstantiated although an effort has been made to project that the affidavit dated 05.12.2011 filed by Sh. Vijender Singh, District Town Planner, Gurgaon does not reply the first question framed by this Court whether any building was released from this acquisition as per policy of the State Government. However, that would not have any material bearing because the opinion expressed by us in the preceding para. 7. For the reasons stated above, these writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. 8. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 08, 2011 Atul