IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10411 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: December 3, 2008 Sarjeet and another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate, (in CWP Nos. 10411 of 2007, 2776 and 9921 of 2008) Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, (in CWP Nos. 18723 of 2007, 3284, and 5045 of 2008) Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate, (in CWP Nos. 18407 of 2007 and 14532 of 2008) Mr. Sarwinder Goyal, Advocate, (in CWP No. 16668 of 2008) for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana. for the respondent State of Haryana. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondent HUDA. 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? C.W.P. No. 10411 of 2007 M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 9 petitions2 because common question of law and facts are involved. These petitions prays for quashing of notification bearing No. LAC(H) NTLA-2007/358, dated 21.3.2006, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration bearing No. LAC(H) NTLA-2007/358, dated 20.3.2007, issued under Section 6 of the Act. The land situated in the revenue estate of Village Palwas (Hadbast No. 12) and village Bhiwani Lohar (Hadbast No. 22), Tehsil and District Bhiwani, has been sought to be acquired for utilizing the same by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for residential/commercial area as per development plan of Sector-23, Bhiwani. 2. The principal grounds of challenge in these petitions can be summarised as under: a) Petitioners, who own small pieces of land in question, have raised ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’ class construction; b) Objections filed by them under Section 5-A of the Act have not been dealt with by the Land Acquisition Collector and proper opportunity of hearing was not given to them; c) No spot inspection was made and policy of pick and chose was adopted because houses and 2 C.W.P. No. 10411 of 2007 properties of some of the persons have been left out from acquisition due to favouritism; d) Area is thickly populated and fully developed with all amenities of living and no contiguous piece of land is available. Vacant land is in small pieces which cannot be utilised for any scheme; e) A large chunk of acquired land has already been released whereas the land belonging to the petitioners is being acquired. As per notification issued under Section 4, land measuring 160.28 acres was sought to be acquired, however, a large chunk of land measuring 104.69 acres has already been released from acquisition at the time of issuance of declaration under Section 6; f) As per policy of the respondent State the land where construction has been made prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, cannot be acquired; g) In the impugned notifications only khasra numbers and Min are mentioned without specifying the exact description of the land being subject matter of such notifications, which gives an arbitrary power to the revenue officers to harass and exploit poor and illiterate land owners; 3. The respondents have filed separate written statements in each case and have asserted that all the mandatory provisions of the 3 C.W.P. No. 10411 of 2007 Act have been complied with in letter and spirit. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Government gazette on 23.3.2006 as well as in the leading newspapers on 26.3.2006. The proclamation was also made in the locality by beat of drum. Rapat No. 521, dated 23.3.2006 was entered to this effect in Rojnamcha Waqati of the Patwari Halka, village Palawas. The objections filed by the petitioners and other land owners were duly considered and adequate opportunity of personal hearing was granted. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector made his report on individual objections and sent the same to the Government for final decision. It has been conceded that land measuring 104.69 acres in village Palwas and village Bhiwani Lohar including 102.72 acres of land belonging to Goshala of village Palwas, has been left out of the acquisition only after considering the objections and taking a conscious decision. The land belonging to those persons who have raised ‘A’ and ‘B’ class construction and the thickly populated areas have already been left out from acquisition. Thus, it has been asserted that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned notifications. 4. At the hearing today, the original record concerning the acquisition has been produced in the Court. Learned State counsel has also apprised the Court that even portion of the land belonging to some of the petitioners in these petitions has already been released from acquisition after considering their objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act. He has pointed out that 7 marlas of land belonging to Shri Randhir Singh son of Shri Har Sarup (petitioner No. 10 in C.W.P. No. 18723 of 2007); 7 marlas (210 square yards) of land 4 C.W.P. No. 10411 of 2007 belonging to Shri Mohinder Singh son of Shri Surat Singh (petitioner No. 1 in CWP No. 3284 of 2008); and the area of 4 marlas under construction of the house by adding proportionate area, total 7 marlas, belonging to Smt. Channoo Devi wife of Colonel Brahmanand (Retd.) and Smt. Himani Dabas wife of Colonel Narender Singh (petitioners in C.W.P. No. 18407 of 2007) has already been released and the petitions qua these persons have been rendered infructuous. Learned counsel has further submitted that Shri Raj Kumar son of Matu Singh and Shri Dharambir Singh son of Shri Suraj Mal (petitioners in C.W.P. No. 9921 of 2008) have not even filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. He then submitted that CWP Nos. 14532 and 16668 of 2008 are liable to be dismissed on account of the fact that the same have been filed after passing of the award, which was announced on 18.8.2008 and possession of the land has been handed over to the HUDA free from all encumbrances. CWP No. 14532 of 2008 was filed on the date of passing of the award i.e. 18.8.2008 whereas CWP No. 16668 of 2008 was filed on 17.9.2008. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, perusing the paper book and the original record with their able assistance, we are of the considered view that these petitions deserve to be dismissed. After minute examination of the original record we find that there is no legal infirmity on the part of the respondents in compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. All the procedures required to be adopted under the Act have been duly followed. From the perusal of the original record it is 5 C.W.P. No. 10411 of 2007 crystal clear that the Land Acquisition Collector has dealt with each and every objection filed by the land owners and separate reports were made to the effect whether the land is required to be acquired or released. Thereafter the report with recommendations was sent to the Government for taking final decision. It has also apparent from the record that wherever it was found that there were ‘A’ or ‘B’ class constructions or the area was thickly populated, considering the objections, the land has been released. It has also come on record and could not be disputed by the petitioners that the land belonging to some of the petitioners, as detailed in preceding para No. 4, has already been released from acquisition. 6. It is also pertinent to mention that the impugned notifications, subject matter of challenge in the present petitions, also came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 12145 of 2008 (Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others) and CWP No. 12172 of 2008 (Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others). On 10.9.2008, while considering the ground of the petitioners that no large chunk of land is available which could be utilised for any scheme, the Division Bench put a specific query to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Mr. T.C. Gupta, who was present in the Court, as to for what purpose the land is to be utilised. He apprised the Court that HUDA has viable schemes for utilisation of such lands. The Division Bench dismissed both the writ petitions, vide order dated 10.9.2008, observing that no interference of this Court is warranted. 6 C.W.P. No. 10411 of 2007 7. We also found no force in the ground taken by the petitioners that in the impugned notifications only khasra numbers and Min were mentioned without specifying the exact description of the land in the notifications. As a matter of fact, the aforementioned ground is not available to the petitioners because it is conceded position that most the petitioners and other land owners have filed their objections under Section 5-A of the Act, which were duly considered and dealt with by the Land Acquisition Collector. Opportunity of hearing was given and even portion of land has been released from acquisition. Meaning thereby the petitioners were fully aware that which part of their land was sought to be acquired and which one was not included in the acquisition. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to summarily reject the contention raised by the petitioners. 8. We found merit in the argument raised by learned State counsel in so far as CWP Nos. 14532 and 16668 of 2008 are concerned. It is conceded position that CWP No. 14532 of 2008 was filed on the date of announcement of award i.e. 18.8.2008, whereas CWP No. 16668 of 2008 was filed much thereafter on 17.9.2008. It is well settled that no writ petition would be competent after the announcement of award. For the afore-mentioned view, we place reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court 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; and C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Govenrment of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627. The possession of the land in 7 C.W.P. No. 10411 of 2007 question was taken and transferred to the HUDA free from all encumbrances soon after pronouncement of the award. Accordingly, CWP Nos. 14532 and 16668 of 2008 are liable to be dismissed on this score alone. 9. As a sequel to the above discussion, these petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. However, the petitions qua the petitioners whose land has been released from acquisition (details of which have been given in para 4) are however disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 3, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 8 2 1. Sarjeet and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 10411 of 2007); 2. Smt. Channoo Devi and another State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 18407 of 2007); 3. Mangat Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 18723 of 2007); 4. Suman v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 2776 of 2008); 5. Mohinder Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 3284 of 2008); 6. Smt. Aruna and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 5045 of 2008); 7. Raj Kumar and another v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 9921 of 2008); 8. Balwan Sindhu v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 14532 of 2008); and 9. Satish and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 16668 of 2008).