CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.4.2011 The Friends Cooperative House Building Society (Regd). and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) CWP No.904 of 1992(O&M) The National Co-operative House Building Society (Regd.) Ltd. Kaithal and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) CWP No.9472 of 1995(O&M) Ram Swaroop and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) CWP No.6626 of 1995(O&M) Ram Kumar and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 2 Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This judgment shall dispose of 4 writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.15755 of 1991, 904 of 1992, 9472, 6626 of 1995 as in all these writ petitions notifications dated 5.4.1990 and 4.4.1991 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') respectively, for acquisition of the land of the petitioners have been challenged on similar grounds. However, for convenience sake, the facts are being taken from CWP No.15755 of 1991. As per the averments, petitioner No.1 is a Cooperative Society which was duly registered on 8.5.1982 for the purpose of purchase of land and allotment of plots to its members for construction of houses. The land in question was purchased by the petitioner-Society vide various sale deeds in the year 1982 and 1983. Mutation was also sanctioned in the name of petitioner-Society. Respondent No.1 issued notification dated 5.4.1990 (Annexure P-2) under Section 4 of the Act, intending to acquire land measuring 95.28 acres including the land of the petitioners in the area of village Jagadhri, Hadbast No.400 and Garhi Mundoo, Hadbast No.408, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as residential, commercial and Industrial area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Petitioners averred that the respondent-State failed to comply with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act regarding giving of due publicity to the substance of notification by way of publication in newspapers. Neither the Munadi was conducted in the locality of the village where the land proposed to be acquired nor the substance of the notification was affixed at any conspicuous place in the CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 3 locality. Somehow the members of the petitioner-Society came to know about the acquisition proceedings and thus, filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act vide Annexure P-3 to the proposed acquisition. According to the petitioners, they received a notice for appearance before respondent No.2 and in pursuance thereto they were present before the Land Acquisition Collector, however, neither they were heard nor any enquiry was conducted by the Collector as envisaged under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Not only this, no report of the Collector was ever sent to the Government containing his recommendations on the objections filed by them and thus, the respondent-Collector had failed in his duty as prescribed in the Act, rendering the entire land acquisition proceedings unlawful. As per the further averments, the respondent-State issued a declaration vide notification under Section 6 on 4.4.1991 acquiring the land of the petitioners without even disposing of the objections submitted by them. According to the petitioners, the publication of Section 6 Notification was also not made either by way of Munadi or by way of pasting of the substance of notification in the locality at a conspicuous place. Even publication of Section 6 Notification was not made in two newspapers as per the knowledge of the petitioners. It is the further pleaded that action of the respondents in acquiring their land was discriminatory as a large portion of the land identical to the petitioners' land was left out of acquisition, which was clear from the facts that under Section 4 of the Act, respondents proposed to acquire 95.28 acres of land in village Jagadhri whereas in notification under Section 6 of the Act, the acquisition was made of the land measuring 90.70 acres only and remaining land was released in a pick and choose manner, thus, the acquisition proceedings were liable to be set aside. CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 4 On 11.10.1991, noticing the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that his objection under Section 5-A has not been disposed of inspite of the fact that notification under Section 6 of the Act has been issued. Notice of motion for 6.12.1991. Status quo with respect to possession.” The respondents No.2, 3 and 4 contested the writ petition by filing separate written statements on their behalf. The averments made in the writ petition were controverted by the Land Acquisition Collector (respondent No.2) submitting that compliance of Section 4 of the Act was duly made. The due publicity was made in the locality regarding the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act by beat of drums, the publication of the notification was also made in two daily newspapers. It was also submitted that the petitioner-Society had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act through Sh. V.P. Chaudhary, Hony. Secretary of the Society. Opportunity of personal hearing was also granted and Sh. Sunder Lal, Advocate, had appeared on behalf of the Society on 19.10.1990 (i.e. the date fixed for hearing of objections). After considering the objections filed by the petitioners, the Government decided to notify the land under Section 6 of the Act. Due publicity was made of the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act in the locality by beat of drums and the same was got published in two daily newspapers 'Jansatta' (Hindi) dated 19.4.1991 and 'The Tribune' dated 23.4.1991. The allegations of discrimination were denied praying dismissal of writ petition being misconceived. In its reply, HUDA (respondent No.3) submitted that the main CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 5 purpose of acquiring the land is to develop the land in a planned manner for public purposes, providing land for roads, open spaces, gardens, school, housing, institutions, commercial activities etc. and the acquired land was to be utilized for planned development along with the upliftment of weaker sections of the Society by providing them an opportunity to own house at subsidized rates i.e. at the rate of ` 300 per sq.yards which were far below than the prevailing market rates. The acquired land was lying vacant and if the land of the petitioners is released, the entire development of the area would get affected adversely. The writ petitions were admitted for regular hearing by placing reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Shiromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P 1990 AIR SC 645 wherein land belonging to the Cooperative Society was released from acquisition. It may also be relevant to mention here that on 30.3.2011, on a specific contention raised, the following order was passed: “It is specific contention of Shri Alok Jain, Advocate, that before issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) in this case, no report was submitted to the competent authority by the Land Acquisition Collector. We cautioned Shri Alok Jain that the averment made may not be correct as after reading paras No.13 and 14 of the reply, it appears that the report of the Land Acquisition Collector regarding objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, by the land owners was considered by the Government before issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act. However, he still insisted and pleaded that the record CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 6 be summoned. Adjourned to April 1, 2011. Shri Sehgal is directed to produce records. It is made clear that if this contention is found to be incorrect, costs will be imposed on the petitioners. A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.” In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the respondents have produced the record of the case before this Court. From the record, it is found that the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was duly published in two newspapers i.e. 'Vir Partap' (Hindi) dated 1.5.1990 and 'The Tribune' (English) dated 24.1.1991. It was also found that the substance of the notification under Section 4 was also given due publicity by beat of drums in the locality and thus, requirement of Section 4 of the Act was complied with. From the record, it was also found that after hearing the objections filed by the petitioners, who were duly represented through their counsel Sh. Sunder Lal, Advocate, the Land Acquisition Collector submitted his report to the Government and after taking into consideration the said report, the Government decided to release land measuring 2.28 acres on account of fact that the same was having 'A' and 'B' Class structures of an industrial unit by the name of M/s J.K. Metal Works which was functional. The Government had also decided to release land measuring 0.21 acres having 'A' and 'B' structures in Khasra No.116/26 min, land measuring 0.14 acres having 'A' Class construction under Khasra No.95/22/1, 22/2 min, 97/33 min, 96/33 min and further an area measuring 0.33 acres falling in Khasra No.116/27 min, 96/42 min, 95/21 min, 95/20/2 min, 94/25/2min, 94/24/2 min having 'B' Class construction and 0.79 acres falling in Khasra No.114/39, 114/40, 114/41/1, 41/2, 114/42/1, 42/2, 42/3 and the remaining area was notified for CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 7 acquisition. Thus, this Court is satisfied that after hearing objections of the petitioners, the Land Acquisition Collector has submitted his report to the Government and after considering the same, the Government had decided to issue notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. From the perusal of record, the Court is satisfied that due compliance of provisions under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have been made in the present case regarding publication of the notifications and in fact, learned counsel for the petitioners could not controvert the record produced by the respondent-State in this regard. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently argued that land belonging to the petitioner-Cooperative Society, which was purchased for the purpose of allotting the plots to its members for construction of houses, could not have been acquired in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Shiromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd.'s (supra). In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners further relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Residents Employees Co-operative House Building Society and others v. The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and another AIR 1990 (SC) 1325,. Hira Lal Chawla and another v. State of U.P and others 1990 (1) Revenue Law Reporter 356, National Fertilizers Employees Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1998 (3) PLR 618. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel has prayed that public purpose for which the land was acquired being the same, as that of the members of the society, the petitioners are entitled to release of their land and the impugned notifications are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, it has been vehemently argued that the CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 8 land is being developed for a public purpose in a planned manner and for upliftment of weaker sections of the Society and in case the land of the petitioners is released, the same will adversely affect the whole planning of the area especially when the land has been acquired in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the judgments cited at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners are of no help to him and thus, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the averments and the documents including records of the case. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that public purpose of the acquisition under challenge being the same as that of the Society, the petitioners were entitled to the release of their land. Reliance has been placed on the judgments as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs to support the claim of the petitioners. However, it is relevant to mention, at this stage, that in none of the aforesaid judgments, it has been laid as a rule of law that land belonging to Cooperative Building Housing Society cannot be acquired. No doubt in some of the aforesaid judgments, the land of the Employees Society formed by the low paid employees was ordered to be released by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to meet their requirement and was deleted from notification from acquisition but the said judgment was delivered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, as in the aforesaid case, the Society was formed by low paid employees for construction of their residential accommodation and they had taken effective steps for construction before the acquisition proceedings had started. Learned counsel for the petitioners had not cited any judgment according to which it has been settled as a principle of law that land belonging to Cooperative Society cannot be acquired. Hence the contention as raised by learned CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 9 counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable Though the petitioners have also alleged discrimination, however, the said plea has not been substantiated in any manner. It has also come on record that only a small portion of land wherein construction was raised was left out of acquisition after hearing objections under Section 5-A of the Act, whereas, admittedly the land of the petitioners is lying vacant. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners half heartedly raised an argument to the effect that notification under Section 4 of the Act was not published as per the mandatory procedure provided, as all the three modes of publication (i.e. by way of gazette notification; by publication in two newspapers and by way of publicizing the substance of the notification in the locality) were supposed to be complied with prior to grant of hearing under Section 5-A of the Act whereas, in the present case, the objections were heard much prior to the publication of the notification in the English newspaper dated 24.1.1991 and thus, whole of the acquisition proceedings were vitiated and the same were liable to be quashed. However, learned counsel for the petitioners could not substantiate the aforesaid argument either by referring to any of the provisions of the Act or to a precedent/judgment in support of his aforesaid argument. Even otherwise, a finding has been recorded that compliance of Section 4 of the Act was made in the present case by publishing the said notification by all the three modes. Not only this, admittedly the petitioners had filed objections in pursuance to the notifications issued and were granted opportunity of hearing and thereafter, the report of Land Acquisition Collector was considered and thereafter, land was acquired by the Government. Thus, no fault can be found in the procedure adopted and the challenge to acquisition of the land in question, fails. CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 10 No other argument was raised. Thus, we find no merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE April 4, 2011 ps CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.904 of 1992(O&M) Date of decision: 4.4.2011 The National Co-operative House Building Society (Regd.) Ltd. Kaithal and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. For orders, see judgment of even date passed in CWP No.15755 of 1991 (The Friends Cooperative House Building Society (Regd). and another Versus State of Haryana and another). (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE April 4, 2011 ps CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9472 of 1995(O&M) Date of decision: 4.4.2011 Ram Swaroop and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: None for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. For orders, see judgment of even date passed in CWP No.15755 of 1991 (The Friends Cooperative House Building Society (Regd). and another Versus State of Haryana and another). (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE April 4, 2011 ps CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6626 of 1995(O&M) Date of decision: 4.4.2011 Ram Kumar and others ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: None for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. For orders, see judgment of even date passed in CWP No.15755 of 1991 (The Friends Cooperative House Building Society (Regd). and another Versus State of Haryana and another). (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE April 4, 2011 ps CWP No.15755 of 1991 (O&M) 14