CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7629 OF 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: August 3 , 2011. Parties Name Jai Ram Dass and others ...PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih PRESENT: Mr. I.S. Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate; Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 5509 of 1989 Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chaudhary, Advocate, for Mr. Jagdeep Lohan, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 and 4. Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This order will dispose of three civil writ petitions bearing No. 7629, 5509 and 5510, all of the year 1989, involving similar questions of law and facts. To dictate the order, facts are being mentioned from CWP CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7629 OF 1989 -2- No. 7629 of 1989. Petitioners have filed this writ petition to impugn notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) on May 14, 1986, and May 13, 1987 respectively. Challenge is also laid to an Award passed on May 2, 1989. Before proceeding to decide these writ petitions on merits, it is necessary to note here that vide order dated July 18, 1989, dispossession of the petitioners, from the land in dispute, was stayed and as per admitted facts on record, till today they are in possession of that land. As per record, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued to acquire 24 Acres 1 Kanal and 17 Marlas of land, for a public purpose, namely, for the establishment of new Grain Market, Office Building, Staff Quarters, Rest House, Gada shed at Mustafabad, tehsil and district Ambala. Petitioners filed objection under Section 5-A of the Act, which did not find favour with the respondents and a declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act on May 13, 1987, to finally acquire 13 Acres 2 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land. Rest of the land was kept out of acquisition. For the above said land, an Award was passed thereafter on May 2, 1989. Petitioners are the owners of 5 Kanals of land. It is their case that the discriminatory treatment has been given to them as the land owned by other land owners was kept out of acquisition whereas acquisition was ordered qua their land. By making reference to the site plan Annexure P2/A, it has been stated that exemption of land falling in Khasras No. 29/1, 29/2 and 24 clearly indicate that favour has been done to the owners of that land, which was lying vacant when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7629 OF 1989 -3- Claim made in the writ petition reads thus: “10. That thereafter notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13.5.1987 i.e. one day prior to the time of expiry of limitation. It may be submitted here that originally at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the total land was 24 Acres 1 Kanal 17 Marlas, whereas at the time of notification under Section 6 of the Act, the land measuring about 11 Acres was left. It may be added here that some area comprising in Khasra No. 29/1, 29/2 owned by one Ajit Singh has been left from the acquisition which falls in between the land sought to be acquired. Similarly, killa No. 24 has been left which is owned by Shri Parmeshwar Singh. For the perusal of this Hon'ble Court, map of the existing Anaj Mandi and acquired land for the extension of the grain market is attached as Annexure P2/A. This map also shows that there is open vacant agricultural land on the Southern and Eastern side of the Anaj Mandi. Disputed land is also shown in green colour in the said map. It is important to mention here that the above said two persons namely Ajit Singh and Parmeshwar Singh are Lok Dal supporters and have political influence and due to that they got their land released from acquisition whereas the land of the petitioners which is part and parcel of the existing Anaj Mandi has not been released though 2/3rd of the plots has been transferred to the Market Committee Mustafabad for the purpose of Thara and Road etc.” CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7629 OF 1989 -4- Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 has been filed by the District Revenue Officer -cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Yamunanagar. (Written-statement is not available on record. However, Shri Sehgal has put on record copy of the same at the time of arguments.) In para No. 10 thereof, it is stated as under: “That para 10 of the petition is wrong hence denied. It is denied that land of alleged supporters of Lok Dal was released from the purview of notification u/Sec 6 under political pressure as is evident from the fact that notification u/s 6 was issued on 13.5.87 whereas the new Govt of Lok Dal came to power after notification. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioner is wrong and misconceived. It is further submitted that some land was left out in order to give regular and convenient shape to the New Grain Market and to acquire the land only to the extent needed for this purpose.” To release the land measuring about 11 Acres, it has only been stated that it was done to give regular and proper shape to the grain market. We have seen the site plan Annexure P2/A. It shows that the release of some land, instead of making the grain market as regular, it has made it the most irregular. The land falling in Khasras No. 29/1 and 29/2 is like a dagger in the body of the grain market. Khasra No. 24 has been conveniently left out of acquisition without any justification. The situation at the spot as depicted in the site plan clearly indicates that the favour has been shown to the land owners of that land. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7629 OF 1989 -5- Not only as above, there is nothing on record to show that under what circumstances rest of the land was released from acquisition. At the time of arguments, Shri Sehgal has also perused the record of the acquisition but has failed to show anything to the contrary except saying that the Committee had made a recommendation that only 8 to 10 Acres of land is needed and rest of the land be released. How the area, to be put under acquisition was selected, there is nothing on record. Such like discriminatory attitude has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hari Ram and another v. State of Haryana and others, (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 621, in which under similar circumstances, it was observed as under: “41. The Government has obligation of acting with substantial fairness and consistency in considering the representations of the landowners for withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been acquired under the same acquisition proceedings. The State Government cannot pick and choose some landowners and release their land from acquisition and deny the same benefit to other landowners by creating artificial distinction. Passing different orders in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act in respect of persons similarly situated relating to the same acquisition proceedings and for the same public purpose is definitely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be held to be discriminatory.” Similarly in the case of Sri Radhy Shyam (Dead) Through L.Rs. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7629 OF 1989 -6- and others v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2011( 4 ) Supreme Court 524, noting discriminatory attitude at the hands of the Government, their lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under: “60. We also find merit in the appellants' plea that the acquisition of their land is vitiated due to violation of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. A reading of the survey report shows that the committee constituted by the State Government had recommended release of land measuring 18.9725 hectares. Many parcels of land were released from acquisition because the landowners had already raised constructions and were using the same as dwelling units. A large chunk of land measuring 4.3840 hectares was not acquired apparently because the same belonged to an ex- Member of the Legislative Assembly. The appellants had also raised constructions on their land and were using the same for residential and agricultural purposes. Why their land was not left out from acquisition has not been explained in the counter- affidavit filed by the respondents. The High Court should have treated this as sufficient for recording a finding that the respondents had adopted the policy of pick and choose in acquiring some parcels of land and this amounted to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Indeed it has not been pleaded by the respondents that the appellants cannot invoke the doctrine of equality because the other parcels of land were illegally left out from acquisition.” CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7629 OF 1989 -7- At the time of arguments, a technical objection was raised by Shri Sehgal that these writ petitions having been filed after passing of an Award are not maintainable. As per admitted facts, possession of the land is still with the petitioners. If that is so, in view of ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prahlad Singh and others v. Union of India and others, (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 386, this contention is liable to be rejected. In view of facts, mentioned above, these writ petitions are allowed and acquisition qua land of the petitioners stands quashed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Augustine George Masih) Judge August 3, 2011 DKC