IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 17627 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 08, 2009 Khushal Bawa and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No. 1 to 3. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners have raised a challenge to the initiation of acquisition proceedings, whereby the land of the petitioners was proposed to be acquired, through a notification dated 02.04.2007 (Annexure P/8). A perusal of the aforesaid notification reveals, that the same was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). All persons interested, who may have a grievance against the proposed acquisition, were permitted to raise objections within 30 days of the publication of the aforesaid notification. It is not a matter of dispute, that the objections were actually raised at the hands of the petitioners. However, the objections raised by the petitioners were not accepted. Consequently, the final determination of the respondents to acquire CWP No. 17627 of 2008 the petitioners’ land was taken through another notification dated 11.03.2008 (Annexure P/15) issued under Section 6 of the Act. A perusal of the aforementioned two notifications reveal, that the acquisition of land as well as built up property thereon, was sought to be made in public interest for broadening National Highway No.10 passing through the municipal limits of Rohtak City. The pleadings before us reveal, that they were bottlenecks resulting in clogging of traffic on the instant road which is undisputedly the most important road passing through the city of Rohtak. In order to demonstrate ground realities of the acquisition, the petitioners have placed on record of the instant case, a site plan as Annexure P/2. The aforesaid site plan reveals, that width of road in question at its broadest point is 72 feet, whereas at its narrowest point, it is merely 37.6 feet. Through the instant acquisition process, the endeavour of the respondents is to widen the road as far as possible. The acquisition, as is apparent from Annexure P-2, would have the effect of widening the road under reference from 37.6 feet to 57.6 feet at the narrowest point. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the instant action of widening the road envisaged through the notifications sought to be impugned by the petitioners would ease-out of the traffic. So far as the respondents are concerned, as against the site plan placed on record of this case as Annexure P/2, a site plan marked as Annexure R/1 has been appended to the joint written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. The aforestated site plan demonstrates a factual position almost in consonance with the one depicted through site plan as Annexure P/2. As per the instant site plan, the road under reference is 70 feet wide at its broadest point and 37.6 feet wide at its narrowest point. 2 CWP No. 17627 of 2008 In the background of the factual position noticed herein above, the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, so as to assail the impugned notification is, that the instant process of acquisition is liable to be set aside on account of the fact that no survey whatsoever was conducted by the respondents before finalizing the land to be acquired. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that while the acquisition under reference has been made on one side of the road, there are encroachments on the other side of the road, and if, the aforesaid encroachments are removed, it would not be necessary to acquire the land of the petitioners for broadening the road. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners have had raised construction on their land and are carrying on commercial activity thereon for years together. It is also pointed out that the petitioners would be subjected to extreme hardship, if the petitioners’ land and buildings are acquired. On the other hand, it is submitted that the encroachers on the opposite side of the road, who have no right and title of the property over which they have affected construction are being allowed to perpetuate the illegality committed by them without any action being taken against them. We have considered the first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph. In response thereto, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that a conscious decision was taken by the respondents to widen the road under reference, after having got the area surveyed. Thereafter, a conscious decision was taken to acquire the land under reference by causing minimum affect to the land owners. Insofar as the encroachments on the opposite side of the road are concerned, it is the contention of the learned 3 CWP No. 17627 of 2008 counsel for the respondents, that consequent upon the initiation of proceedings at the hands of the competent authority, eviction orders have already been passed, and the matter of taking possession of the land under encroachment is being pursued vigorously. While acknowledging the fact that the petitioners have raised construction over the land, which is sought to be acquired, and are carrying on commercial activities therein, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, that it is for larger public interest that the instant acquisition proceedings have been initiated, so as to remove the bottlenecks in the free flow of traffic on the most important and main road in the city of Rohtak, which is also National Highway No.10. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, we find no merit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is the express assertion at the hands of the respondents, that a survey was actually got conducted at the hands of the respondents. In this behalf, the position has been affirmed to us during the course of hearing, even by Sh. R.K. Joon, Sub Divisional Officer, PWD, B&R Branch, Rohtak (who is present in Court in person). Insofar as the encroachment on the opposite side of the road is concerned, it is apparent from the reply of the respondents, that the process of removing the aforesaid encroachments has been initiated and is being pursued vigorously. Although, the adverse effect of the acquisition of the petitioners’ property, is apparent inasmuch as buildings constructed on their land, which are being used for commercial activities are being acquired, yet the purpose for which the land depicted in the impugned notification has been acquired, leaves no room of doubt in our mind, that the same is of greater public interest. Thus, we are 4 CWP No. 17627 of 2008 satisfied that no interference is called for at our hands on the basis of the first contention advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The second contention advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the acquisition sought to be made through the impugned notification will not have the desired effect inasmuch as the road even after acquisition will be of uneven width. In this behalf, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is, that whereas at the entry point of the road, its width is approximately 70 feet, after acquisition, the width of the road at its narrowest point would be merely 57.6 feet. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the action of the respondents in acquiring the land of the petitioners would serve no purpose whatsoever, and as such, should be considered to be arbitrary, and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We have considered the second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the factual position noticed at the beginning of the instant order. At the present juncture, at its narrowest point, the width of the road is 37.6 feet (as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners). After the acquisition, the width at the narrowest point would enlarge to 57.6 feet. But what needs to be further noticed is, that at the narrowest point, on the opposite side of the road, there is an encroachment of 10 feet (as per the site plan placed on record by the petitioners as Annexure P/2). Consequent upon the finalization of eviction proceedings against the encroachers, the width at the narrowest point would become 67.6 feet. In our view, the width of the road would not be uneven after the entire process of acquisition of land and eviction of unauthorized occupants is completed. We are also satisfied that either of the processes initiated by the 5 CWP No. 17627 of 2008 respondents could not be dependent on the other. Stated otherwise, it would not be justified for the respondents to stall the acquisition proceedings till eviction is complete, and vice versa also. Moreover, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that at the narrowest point the road is curved, and its width cannot be widened further after the removal of the encroachment and the acquisition from the land owners beyond 67.5 feet. As such, it is pointed out, that nothing whatsoever could have been done to ensure the uneven width through the length of the road, beyond the steps already taken by the respondents. We are satisfied with the explanation tendered by the respondents. We are also of the view that in view of our determination herein above, there is hardly any justification in the submission that the road is of uneven width inasmuch, as at its broadest point after carrying out the obligations referred to hereinabove, the width of the road would be approximately 70 feet, and at its narrowest point it would be 67.6 feet. The third contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that the entire action of acquiring the petitioners’ land is politically motivated. In this behalf, it is pointed out, that on account of encroachment made by the construction of a Masjid on the opposite side of the road, and the connections of the encroachers (referred to above) with political masters, no action has been initiated against the encroachers, whereas, the petitioners have been victimized and have been prevented from earning their livelihood from commercial activities being carried out by them in the buildings which are subject to acquisition proceedings. It is not possible for us to entertain the aforesaid third submission, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have not impleaded, as party respondents, any of the persons who have made the 6 CWP No. 17627 of 2008 encroachment allegedly on the opposite side of the road, nor have they impleaded as party respondents, those at whose behest action is allegedly not being taken against the encroachers. Thus, viewed, we find no merit in the third contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The fourth contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that similar acquisition proceedings were earlier initiated for acquiring the same land, which is now being acquired through the impugned notifications. The aforestated earlier acquisition proceedings were, however, dropped. As such, it is submitted, that the respondents having taken a conscious decision on the matter earlier, cannot now be permitted to acquire the petitioners’ land. The notifications on the basis of which the land in question was sought to be acquired earlier in the year 1971, have not been placed on record of this case. It is, therefore, not possible for us to ascertain one way or the other whether the acquisition at that juncture was for the same purpose as the one depicted in the present notification. Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments, that even at that juncture, the acquisition was for the same purpose as the one depicted in the impugned notification, we are satisfied that the road traffic in the year 1971 has undergone a huge change after the previous notification was issued. This factual position has also been recorded in the affidavit of the Superintending Engineer, Rohtak Circle, PWD B&R Branch, Rohtak, dated 01.07.2009. In spite of our having determined the fourth contention on the basis of the factual position asserted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners, yet it would be necessary for us to point out that the Naib Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, PWD B&R Branch, Rohtak, vide his memorandum dated 26.03.2009 has expressly reported, that no acquisition was 7 CWP No. 17627 of 2008 ever initiated for widening of road in respect of the land under reference prior to the issuance of the impugned notifications. In the totality of the facts and circumstances noted hereinabove, we find no merit even in the last contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners. No other submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioners, besides those dealt with herein above. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the instant writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge July 08, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 8