THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: December 3, 2008 Jagdish Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. None for respondent No. 4. 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. 1. The instant petition prays for quashing notification dated 11.8.2004, issued under Section 4 and declaration dated 9.8.2005, made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) [Annexures P-30 and P-34]. The petitioner has claimed that the industrial land of the petitioner has been acquired by the C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 aforementioned acquisition. He has also prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to release the land from the purview of the instant acquisition proceedings in terms of the policy of the State Government dated 4.2.2006 (P-40 & P-41). 2. The total area belonging to the petitioner sought to be acquired is 24 Kanals 9 Marlas, which is claimed to be a compact area abutting Palam-Gurgaon road, shown in orange colour in the Sajra plan (P-1). The petitioner has disclosed the acquisition was also sought to be made in the year 1973 and 1982. The notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on 6.7.1981and 25.6.1982, with regard to the petitioner’s land and his co-sharer were challenged in C.W.P. Nos. 1917 and 1918 of 1984. The notifications were quashed on 26.3.2003. A copy of the judgment has been placed on record (P-12). The petitioner has claimed that the unit of the petitioner is known as ‘Yadav Welding Works’. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on 11.8.2004 and 9.8.2005 (P-30 & P-34 respectively). 3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing under Section 5-A of the Act when objections were filed by him. The Division Bench noticed the contention of the petitioner and observed that sweeping statements were usually made alleging non-hearing without any serious thought. Therefore, the Division Bench required the petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the Registrar of this Court and in case the assertion was found to be incorrect then deposit was to be forfeited in favour of the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 23.12.2005. The other ground 2 C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 pleaded is that there is factory on the land and according to the policy of the respondent State the same could not be acquired. In that regard, reliance has been placed on the policy dated 4.2.2006. 4. In the written statement the respondents have claimed that the land belonging to the petitioner is required for development and utilisation of Industrial Sector 18, Electronic City at Gurgaon under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. It has also been pointed out that all necessary steps under Section 4 were taken. A categorical stand has been taken that the petitioner filed objection under Section 5-A of the Act and he personally appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector for hearing of objections, which were heard and considered in accordance with law. The Collector after hearing objections filed by the petitioner as well as other land owners sent his report to the Government for taking decision in the matter. Beside, the Joint Site Inspection Committee also sent its report to the Government and it was thereafter that the Government decided to issue a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 9.8.2005, which has also been published in the newspapers on 13.8.2005. An entry of the declaration has also been made in the Roznamcha Wakayati Halqa Patwari and Rapat No. 636 of 11.8.2005 and all further necessary steps have been taken. Even the award has been announced on 8.12.2006 although possession could not be handed over to the representative of the Estate Officer, HUDA, because a stay order was operating since 8.12.2005. It has been conceded that there was a Dharam Kanta (weighing machine) in the area measuring 65’x 25’, on the land in dispute when notice under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 11.8.2004 but the same could not 3 C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 be released by the Government. The rest of the land has been found to be vacant and there was no factory on the land in dispute when notification under Section 4 was issued. 5. Mr. Shailendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner before issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 9.8.2005. According to the learned counsel in the absence of any opportunity of personal hearing no declaration could be made as the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act are mandatory. He has also submitted that the petitioner has factory over the land in dispute and the same should have been released from acquisition, especially in the light of the policies of the respondent State. 6. Mr. Ashish Kapoor and Mr. Arun Walia, learned counsel for the respondents have, however, vehemently argued that in para 2 of the preliminary objections of the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as para 11 of the reply on merits, a specific stand has been taken that the petitioner was given notice of hearing of objections by the Land Acquisition Collector and the petitioner personally appeared and the Collector after hearing objections sent his report to the Government. The only construction found on the land in dispute was a weighing machine in the area of 65’ x 25’ at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 11.8.2004. Therefore, no legal infirmity could be found in the acquisition proceedings. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and perusing the record with their able assistance, we are of the considered view that the instant petition is devoid of 4 C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. The respondents have taken minute care in issuing notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. It has been found that when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 11.8.2004, only a weighing machine in the area of 65’ x 25’ was in existence. There was no factory as is claimed by the petitioner. The aforesaid factual position has not been controverted by filing any replication. A visual examination of the photographs Annexures P-19 and P-21 do not reveal the existence of building. The area, particularly in photographs Annexure P-21 is vacant, which appears to be under use for welding work. Even the photographs in Annexure P-18 do not show any factory as such. There are certain corrugated sheets on the walls. According to the assertion made by the respondents, there was no factory or structure on the land when notification under Section 4 was issued. Therefore, we find that on that account no legal infirmity could be found in the acquisition proceedings. The land has been found to be plain with only weighing machine installed in the area of 65’ x 25’ and no interference on that account is called for. The public purpose for the acquisition of land is development and utilisation of the area for industrial purposes at Gurgaon for development plan under the HUDA. The public purpose is sought to be justified in the written statement by stating that Electronic City in Industrial Sector 18, Gurgaon, is contemplated and the land is likely to be utilised for that purpose. Even otherwise, we find that all steps for acquisition with regard to publication of notification in the official gazette, newspapers, issuance of notices under Section 5A and grant of hearing to the objectors with a report to the Government have been meticulously followed. Likewise, 5 C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 declaration under Section 6 has been made by publication in the official gazette beside in various newspapers. The entries have also been made in the revenue record and publicity has been given to the notification by beat of drum in the vicinity. No infirmity noticing any lapse could be found in acquisition of the land in question. 8. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that hearing of objections filed under Section 5-A has not been granted and on that account the acquisition is liable to be set aside, is wholly misconceived because the argument is falsified on perusal of para 2 of the preliminary objection and para 11 of the reply on merit of the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which are extracted below for facility of reference:- “2. That the petitioner filed the objections u/s-5A of the L.A.Act. The petitioner was given notice of hearing of objections u/s-5A by the Land Acquisition Collector. In response to the said notice the petitioner personally appeared before the Land Acquisition (Collector?) for hearing of objections u/s-5A of the L.A. Act. He was given full opportunity of personal hearing of objection as per the provisions of the Act. His statement was recorded. He signed the same before the Land Acquisition Collector. After hearing and considering the objections as per the L.A. Act, the Land Acquisition Collector sent its report to the Govt. The Joint Site Inspection Committee also sent its reports to the Govt. After perusal of the entire record and the reports of Land Acquisition Collector and Joint Site Inspection, the 6 C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 Govt. decided to issue the declaration u/s-6 of the Act well in accordance with the provisions of the L.A. Act.” “11. That in reply to para No. 11 of the Amended Civil Writ Petition, it is submitted that the petitioner filed the objections u/s-5A of the Act. The petitioner was given the notice of hearing of objections u/s-5A by the Land Acquisition Collector. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner personally appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector for hearing of the objections. The detail of construction on the land in dispute has already been given in forgoing paras. The said construction (Dharam Kanta) has not been released from acquisition by the Govt. The land in dispute has already been acquired for public purpose as per the demarcation plan submitted by the Distt. Town Planner, Gurgaon. It is denied that the land in dispute is being acquired at the behest of the colonizer.” 9. A perusal of the aforementioned paras shows that the petitioner was granted opportunity of personal hearing of objections. His statement was recorded and he signed the same before the Land Acquisition Collector. The Collector sent his report to the Government. The aforementioned assertion made by the respondents has not been controverted by filing any replication. That being the factual position, no fault can be found in the acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, the argument raised is wholly misconceived and is liable to be rejected. 7 C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 10. The other argument of Mr. Jain that the petitioner has been subjected to hostile discrimination as land of some other land owners/industries has been released does not call for any detailed examination because firstly the land of the petitioner was found to be vacant at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 and secondly the Courts cannot act as expert to record a finding as to which part of the land would be required for developing industry. In that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made in the case of M/s Anand Buttons v. State of Haryana, AIR 2005 SC 565 (See paras 11 & 13). 11. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the petitioner in pursuance to order dated 15.12.2005, with the Registrar of this Court would also stand forfeited. The Registrar is directed to release a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 3, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 8