C.W.P.No.18900 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.18900 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 25.11.2010 Sis Ram and another ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate, Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate, Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Addl.A.G., Haryana. Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate, for the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Mr.Hemant Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.5. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of C.W.P.Nos.18900, 13069, 13102, 13134, 18925, 11749, 16043, 13632, 13633, 13634, 13635, 13954, 16105, 15540, 13970 and 12204 of 2008 and CWP No.875 of 2009. For the facility of dictation, facts are being taken from C.W.P.No.18900 of 2008. By filing this writ petition, petitioners pray that a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( in short 'the C.W.P.No.18900 of 2008 -2- Act' ) proposing to acquire 638.74 acres of land, including land of the petitioners, be quashed. Further challenge is to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 30.4.2007. Heard counsel for the parties. As per notification mentioned above, land falling in the revenue estates of five villages i.e. Baroli, Sihi, Murtezapur, Pehladpur and Bhatola was proposed to be acquired. The petitioners' land falls in village Baroli. At the time of arguments, it was vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioners that the mandatory provisions regarding publication of the notification, as envisaged under Section 4 of the Act, were not complied with. To stress the above-said argument, reliance was placed upon paragraph Nos.10 & 11 of the writ petition which reads thus:- “10. That the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act has not been issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Act, according to which the notification is required to be published in the official Gazette and in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality where the land is situated of which at least one newspaper is to be in the regional language. The Collector is also required to cause public notice of substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. 11. That in the present case, respondents have failed to publish the notification in two daily newspapers having circulation in the locality where the land of the petitioners is situated or in an approved newspaper in the C.W.P.No.18900 of 2008 -3- regional language. The Collector has further failed to cause public notice of the substance of the gazette notification and the notification published in the newspapers to be caused at convenient places in the locality where the land of the petitioners is situated, thereby rendering the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act to be void ab initio and illegal.” Upon notice, reply has been filed. Para No.2 of the preliminary objections of the reply filed reads thus:- “2. That the brief facts of the impugned acquisition proceedings are that the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act pertaining to land measuring 391.16 acre of village Baroli, Tehsil and Distt. Faridabad for the public purpose namely, development of the area for residential and commercial purposes as Sector-75 and 80, Faridabad, was notified in the official Gazette on 1.5.2006 bearing No.LAC(F) NTLA/2006/252 dated 1.5.2006 and the same was got published in two daily leading News Papers in two languages i.e. Indian Express (English) dated 5.5.06 and Amar Ujala (Hindi) dated 4.5.06. Thereafter, munadi (public proclamation) was also effected in the locality by beat of drums and a report to this effect was also made and which was reduced to writing by the Halqua patwari in his Roznamcha (Wakyati) vide Rapat no.877 dated 6.5.2006 of village Baroli. Only five objections were C.W.P.No.18900 of 2008 -4- received against the above said notification under section 4 of the Act. These objections were heard on 8.3.2007 and report thereon was sent to the Government on 2.4.2007 for decision. But in the present case no objection was ever filed by the petitioner against the above said notification. Subsequently, declaration under section 6 of the Act for land measuring 254.34 acre was published in the official Gazette and the said declaration was also got published in two daily leading newspapers of Hindi and English namely “Amar Ujala” dated 4.5.07 and “The Indian Express” dated 4.5.07 respectively. A munadi (public proclamation) was also made by beating of drums in the locality and report to this effect was recorded by the Halqua patwari vide rapat no.388 dated 3.5.07. The substance of declaration under section 6 of the Act was also placed in the conspicuous/convenient places in the locality. The entire acquisition proceedings are legal, valid, constitutional and fully in accordance with law. Hence, the petition of the petitioners deserves dismissal on this score alone being without any merit.” No replication has been filed to the averments made in the written statement filed by respondent No.2, wherein it has specifically been stated that the substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was notified in the Official Gazette on 1.5.2006 and was also got published in two daily Newspapers, namely, Indian Express (English) on 4.5.2006 and C.W.P.No.18900 of 2008 -5- Amar Ujala (Hindi) on 4.5.2006. It is further stated that public proclamation (munadi) was also got effected through beat of drum in village Baroli. Entry to this effect was also made in Roznamcha (Wakyati) of the village by the Halqua Patwari against Sr.No.877 on 6.5.2006. In response to notice issued, five objections of land owners in village Baroli were received which were properly decided by the Land Acquisition Collector. We feel that objection of the petitioners that substance of the notification was not properly published, is without any basis. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners have not filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act which obviously means that they have shown acquiescence to the proposed acquisition. A similar situation arose before the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others etc., AIR 1999 SC 3822 and it was opined in paragraphs 8 and 9 as under:- “8. In connection with owners or persons interested who have not filed objections under Section 5A, in principle, it must be accepted that they had no objection to Section 4 notification operating in respect of their property. On the other hand, in respect of those who filed objections, they might have locus standi to contend that Section 5A inquiry was not conducted properly. We, therefore, agree in principle with the view of the three Judge Bench in Abhey Ram's case that those who have not filed objections under Section 5A, could not be allowed to contend that the Section 5A inquiry was bad and that consequently Section 6 declaration C.W.P.No.18900 of 2008 -6- must be struck down and that then the Section 4 notification would lapse. If, therefore, no objections were filed by the respondents, logically the Section 6 declaration must be deemed to be in force so far as they are concerned. 9. But learned senior counsel for the respondents contends that the judgment of the Division Bench dated 18.11.1988 in B.R. Gupta's case had quashed the entire Section 5A proceedings and that even in case the respondents had filed objections, the position would not have been different. We cannot accept this contention. We are of the view that in respect of those who did not object to the Section 4(1) notification by filing objections under Section 5A, the said notification must be treated as being in force. The writ petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that in some other cases, the notification was quashed and that such quashing would also enure to their benefit.” Similar was the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nishi Gupta and another vs. State of Haryana and another, C.W.P.No.14673 of 2007 decided on 8.7.2008. Para 5 thereof reads thus:- “5. It is also an admitted position that no objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed by the petitioners. That would show acquiescence of the petitioners to the acquisition proceedings. Moreover, the C.W.P.No.18900 of 2008 -7- writ petition has been filed after announcement of the award, which was passed on 5.7.2007 and the writ petition has been filed on 18.9.2007. Accordingly, the land free from all encumbrances has vested in the State. It is well settled that no writ petition is maintainable after announcement of the award, especially when the petitioners have also failed to file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. For the aforementioned proposition we place reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698; Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280.” Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioners states that the land was not acquired for a public purpose. We have perused the contents of the notification issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act and feel that the land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilization as residential and commercial purpose for Sectors 75 & 80, Faridabad under the Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. Development was to be done by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Though not entitled to raise any further objection, counsel for C.W.P.No.18900 of 2008 -8- the petitioners, by making reference to paras 19 to 22, contends that a vast track of land has been released from acquisition whereas similar relief was not granted to the petitioners. Paras No.19 to 22 read thus:- “19. That in the revenue estate of Baroli more than 1/3rd of the area notified for acquisition has been released as land measuring 136.82 acres in Baroli has been released as declaration under section 6 has been issued only in respect of 254.3 acres. 20. Similarly in Pehladpur more than 20% of the area notified for acquisition has been released as land measuring 20.70 acres in Pehladpur has been released as declaration under section 6 has been issued only in respect of 69.40 acres. 21. In Sihi about 50% of the land has been released as 38.87 acres has been released as declaration has been issued only in respect of 40.57 acres. 22. In Murtezapur as against 65.37 acres only 15.25 acres has been declared to be acquired and 50.12 acres has been released and thus more than 75% of the area in Murtezapur has been released.” When the petitioners have not earlier filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act, they, probably cannot raise such like objections at this stage. Further, it is simply stated that the land was released from acquisition. Be that as it may, it is not disputed before us that the State Government has framed a policy to grant Change of Land Use Certificate C.W.P.No.18900 of 2008 -9- and a certificate for development of colonies has been issued to the developers under that policy. Not even a word has been said that as to how this policy was violated. Otherwise also, this policy is not under challenge in this writ petition. No case is made out for interference by this Court. Dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE November 25, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE