IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8268 of 1991 Date of Decision: November 7, 2011 Satya Rishi Pal …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV N RAJIV N RAJIV N RAJIV NARAIN RAINA ARAIN RAINA ARAIN RAINA ARAIN RAINA Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, A M.M. KUMAR, A M.M. KUMAR, A M.M. KUMAR, Acg. cg. cg. cg.C.J. 1. In the instant petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, notifications dated 22.3.1990 and 19.3.1991 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) respectively have been challenged. 2. The aforementioned notifications were issued for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land for residential, commercial, institutional and maintenance of open spaces at Gurgaon, as shown in the development plan under the Haryana Urban CWP No. 8268 of 1991 2 Development Authority Act, 1977. The petitioner along with his brothers owned land comprised in Khasra No. 98, Killa No. 17 (1-3), 24/1 (3-17), 27 (0-9) and 28 (0-4), total measuring 5 Kanals 13 Marlas, situated in village Jharsa. The petitioner has claimed that on the land in dispute, his maternal grand-father constructed a Dharmshala and a water-hut in the year 1930. The land is surrounded by high boundary wall and there are also Samadhies of his forefathers. It is claimed that the land is used for religious and Charitable purpose. Besides this, in the un-constructed portion there is an orchard. After issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 22.3.1990 (P-1), the petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 16.4.1990 giving all the details of the constructed area (P-2). Despite the same, the land belonging to the petitioner has been included in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was made on 19.3.1991. The allegation levelled by the petitioner is that the Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 2 did not call him for hearing of the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act. Thus, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. The other ground taken is that in the notification under Section 4, intention was shown to acquire 39.75, 197.22 and 634.40 acres of land of villages Salokhra, Islampur and Jharsa respectively whereas in the declaration under Section 6 the Government released 23.94, 24.78 and 134.72 acres of land in the said villages. CWP No. 8268 of 1991 3 3. In the written statement filed by the Collector- respondent No. 2, it has been denied that no notice of hearing the objection under Section 5A of the Act was given to the petitioner. It has been specifically pointed out that the objections under Section 5A of the Act were filed by the petitioner along with Smt. Ganga Dei and others and notice for hearing of objections was served in accordance with law. At the time of hearing of objections, the brother of the petitioner, namely, Shri Surya Parkash appeared before the Collector on behalf of all the objectors including the petitioner. He also put his signatures. With regard to the construction, it is stated that there exists one Samadhi measuring 10’ x 7’ (70 Sq. feet) in Rect. No. 98 Khasra No. 17; a Hodi (water tank) of the size 25’ x 10’ (250 Sq. ft.) over the land comprised in Rect. No. 98 Khasra No. 27; and one well and Pio measuring 20’ x 10’ in the said land. In the land bearing Rect. No. 98 Khasra No. 28, there is one room (Dharamshala) measuring 45’ x 12’ (540 Sq. feet). Thus, in all there was construction having covered area of 118 Sq. Yards (1060 Sq. feet). 4. Having heard learned State counsel we are of the considered view that the writ petition with regard to vacant land deserves to be dismissed particularly in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 18.1.2011, rendered in the case of Suresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and another (CWP No. 6128 of 1992) and other four connected writ petitions wherein same notifications CWP No. 8268 of 1991 4 dated 22.3.1990 and 19.3.1991, were also subject matter of challenge. The Division Bench came to the conclusion that the land in dispute in those cases was lying vacant when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. Moreover, the land owners did not file objections at the relevant time under Section 5-A of the Act. Therefore, placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Delhi Administration Delhi Administration Delhi Administration Delhi Administration v. v. v. v. Gurdip Gurdip Gurdip Gurdip Singh Uban Singh Uban Singh Uban Singh Uban, AIR 1999 SC 3822 , AIR 1999 SC 3822 , AIR 1999 SC 3822 , AIR 1999 SC 3822, and another judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Surat Singh and Surat Singh and Surat Singh and Surat Singh and others others others others v. v. v. v. State State State State of Haryana and another of Haryana and another of Haryana and another of Haryana and another (CWP No. 7657 of 1991, decided on (CWP No. 7657 of 1991, decided on (CWP No. 7657 of 1991, decided on (CWP No. 7657 of 1991, decided on 3.12.1991) 3.12.1991) 3.12.1991) 3.12.1991) the Division Bench dismissed the aforementioned bunch of petitions vide judgment dated 18.1.2011. 5. However, in the instant petition the position is slightly different, therefore, the dismissal of Suresh Kumar’s Suresh Kumar’s Suresh Kumar’s Suresh Kumar’s case (supra) and other connected petitions case (supra) and other connected petitions case (supra) and other connected petitions case (supra) and other connected petitions would not result into continuation of acquisition with regard to the constructed area, which exist in the form of Samadhi measuring 10’ x 7’ (70 Sq. feet) in Rect. No. 98 Khasra No. 17; a Hodi (water tank) of the size 25’ x 10’ (250 Sq. ft.) over the land comprised in Rect. No. 98 Khasra No. 27; and one well and Pio measuring 20’ x 10’ in the said land. It would also not be applicable to one room Dharamshala, measuring 45’ x 12’ (540 Sq. feet) comprised in land bearing Rect. No. 98 Khasra No. 28. It is also relevant to mention here that vide order dated 6.6.1991, while issuing CWP No. 8268 of 1991 5 notice of motion, this Court passed an order staying dispossession of the petitioner. Meaning thereby he is still continuing with the possession of the land in dispute. The total area of construction admitted in the written statement being 118 Sq. Yards along with proportionate/equivalent area necessary for enjoyment of the aforesaid land shall be left out of the acquisition. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) November November November November 7, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 Judge Judge Judge Judge PKapoor