Civil Writ Petition No.20994 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1.Civil Writ Petition No.20994 of 2008 Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 2.Civil Writ Petition No.21265 of 2008 Ashok Gupta and Abhay Dev ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents Date of Decision:-16.12.2009 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.S.Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Palika Monga,DAG Haryana for respondent Nos.1to 3 Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. As common question of law and facts are involved in the above mentioned writ petitions, therefore, it would be expedient to decide these petitions by a common order, in order to avoid repetition of the facts. Civil Writ Petition No.20994 of 2008 2 2. The crux of the averments, relevant for disposal of the instant writ petitions, is that in pursuance of the preliminary notification dated 5.3.1990 (Annexure P4) issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), the State of Haryana sought to acquire the land measuring 28.58 acres situated in village Patti Kaisth Seth, Tehsil Kaithal, District Kurukshetra (now District Kaithal), at State expense for public purpose, namely, for development and utilization of the land as residential, commercial and institutional area for Sector 21, Kaithal, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for brevity “HUDA”). Subsequently, vide notification dated 28.2.1991 (Annexure P5) issued under section 6 of the Act, declared that the land mentioned therein measuring 27.55 acres was actually required for the indicated public purpose. 3. An award in respect of the acquisition of the land in question was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short “the Collector”) on 22.2.1993 (Annexure P6), after following the due procedure. 4. The petitioner in CWP No.20994 of 2008 claiming himself to be the owner of land measuring 1 kanal 3 marlas comprised in Khewat No.57/71 rectangle No.104 Killa No.1/1/2 and petitioners in CWP No.21265 of 2008, claiming themselves to be the owners of land measuring 13 marlas being 13/33 share in respect of rectangle No.83 Killa No.17/1 (1-13) and 19 marlas of land bearing Khewat No.438/517 rectangle No.38 Killa Nos.18/2 and 18/3, have challenged the acquisition, vide notifications 5.3.1990 and 28.2.1991 (Annexures P4 and P5) respectively and award (Annexure P6), in the Civil Writ Petition No.20994 of 2008 3 instant writ petitions, inter-alia, pleading that the State of Haryana has earlier also acquired the land vide notification dated 14.7.1982 (Annexure P2) issued under section 4 of the Act, which was subsequently dropped on the ground that acquired land was in low lying area. But State has again acquired the land for the same purpose. Therefore, the acquisition is not bonafide. They claimed that they are in possession of the land in question despite announcement of the award (Annexure P6) and as according to the petitioners, they did not receive any compensation, so the respondents have acquired the land against the mandate of the provisions of sections 11, 11-A and 31 of the Act vitiating the entire acquisition process. Petitioners have also taken the plea of discrimination and claimed the parity on the basis of release of land of Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioners filed the instant writ petitions, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 5. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioners and filed written statements, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections about maintainability of the writ petitions. According to the respondents, after passing the award, the possession of the acquired land was taken and handed over to Estate Officer, HUDA, vide rapat No.238 dated 22.2.1993. Since then, the entire land absolutely vests in the State/HUDA free from all encumbrances. It is stated that the land was acquired vide notification (Annexure P4) and award was made on 22.2.1993 (Annexure P6), whereas the present writ petitions were filed on 12.12.2008 after a lapse of 17 years, which deserve to be dismissed on this ground alone, in view of the law laid Civil Writ Petition No.20994 of 2008 4 down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and this Court in CWP No.13425 of 2004 titled Om Parkash and another v. State of Haryana and others decided on 20.12.2005. 6. It is further averred that the land of Radha Satsang Bhawan was stated to have been released by the State being religious place and no discrimination has been made by the respondents, in this relevant connection. The respondents claimed that the Government has absolute right to acquire any land, which is needed for public purpose. The compensation awarded has been deposited and it was open for the petitioners to withdraw the compensation as the landowners have absolute right to collect the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petitions and prayed for their dismissal. 7. Reiterating the case of the petitioners, their learned counsel has argued that although the award has already been announced on 22.2.1993, but the compensation was not paid to them and since they are in physical possession of their acquired land and have raised construction over it, so they have every right to challenge the acquisition proceedings on the grounds of its illegality. The argument further proceeds that there is no cogent evidence that the respondents have taken the actual possession vide rapat No.238 dated 22.2.1993, which was not sufficient in this respect. 8. Contradicting the claim of the petitioners, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents urged that none of the grounds for challenging the acquisition or release of their land Civil Writ Petition No.20994 of 2008 5 canvassed by the petitioners, is available to them, particularly when the land had already vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be accepted. 10. It is not a matter of dispute that having completed all the codal formalities, the Collector has already announced the award on 22.2.1993 (Annexure P6). It is clearly depicted in the award that possession of the land was taken and handed over to HUDA under section 16 of the Act. Assuming for the sake of argument (though it is not an admitted position), even if the petitioners are in possession, their possession will be deemed to be unauthorised, because the possession was taken by the respondents vide rapat No.238 dated 22.2.1993 and handed over to HUDA. In such situation, the actual possession would be deemed to be of the respondents by operation of law. The petitioners cannot take the benefit of such unauthorized possession in any manner, because Section 16 of the Act postulates that “when the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances.” It means, the land has already been vested in the respondents free from all encumbrances. 11. As is evident from the record that the petitioners have filed the instant writ petitions on 12.12.2008 after about 17 years of issuance of notification (Annexure P4) and 15 years of the Civil Writ Petition No.20994 of 2008 6 announcement of the award (Annexure P6). Once the land has already vested in the Government free from all encumbrances, then the instant writ petitions are clearly not maintainable, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 698, Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Rajasthan and others (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 695 and this Court in M/s Convertaid Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The State of Haryana and others (2003-1) PLR 634, Ram Avtar and others v. State of Haryana and others CWP No.18363 of 2009 decided on 1.12.2009 and Kailash Rani v. State of Haryana and others CWP No.6278 of 2009 decided on 2.12.2009. Even otherwise, these writ petitions filed after more than 18 years of issuance of notification dated 5.3.1990 (Annexure P4) under section 4 of the Act, more than 17 years of issuance of notification dated 28.2.1991 (Annexure P5) under section 6 of the Act and more than 15 years of announcement of the award (Annexure P6) on 22.2.1993, are also liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay/latches. 12. As regards the non-receipt of compensation in respect of acquired land is concerned, it has been specifically pleaded in the written statements filed by the respondents that the petitioners did not intentionally withdraw the compensation, and it is open to the landowners to collect the same from the office of Collector. Furthermore, mere non-withdrawal of compensation by the petitioners is no ground to vitiate the acquisition proceedings. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised another Civil Writ Petition No.20994 of 2008 7 feeble argument that the respondents have earlier acquired the land of the petitioners in the year 1982 for the same purpose, which was subsequently dropped. Therefore, the present acquisition is vitiated by arbitrariness. In order to substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on notification dated 14.7.1982 (Annexure P2) issued under section 4 of the Act. 14. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners as well. The bare perusal of notification (Annexure P2) would reveal that an area of 471.79 acres was sought to be acquired for development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial for Sectors 19 and 20 of Urban Estate, Kaithal, but now only the land measuring 179.56 acres was acquired for development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area for Sector 20 only. It is for the Govt. to decide as to when, where and how much land is to be acquired for a particular purpose. Moreover, there is no legal bar that such land cannot subsequently be acquired. 15. The petitioners has not placed on record any cogent material, in order to substantiate the plea of discrimination particularly when the allegation in this respect has been denied by the respondents, and explanation that the land of Radha Satsang Bhawan was released by the respondents, being religious place. In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot claim the release of their land on the ground of alleged discrimination. 16. Above all, it is now well settled proposition of law that such action of the respondents can only be interfered with, if the Civil Writ Petition No.20994 of 2008 8 Court comes to the conclusion that acquisition proceedings are vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality or irrationality, particularly when there has been no specific allegation of malice and ulterior motive against any of the officers. No such irregularity or illegality has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned acquisition proceedings and award (Annexure P6) in any manner. 17. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 18. For the reasons recorded here-in-above, the instant writ petitions are hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge (Satish Kumar Mittal) Judge 16.12.2009 AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No