Civil Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2000 Date of decision:20th April, 2011 Shahid Baba Jiwan Singh Educational & Welfare Trust, Gurdwara Sis Marg, Sector 53, Kajheri, U.T., Chandigarh through its Chairman, Jaswant Singh. ........Petitioner versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. P.C.Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for U.T., Chandigarh. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Jasbir Singh,J.(Oral) The petitioner is a trust. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(in short, the Act) (P-3) on 3.08.1999, proposing to acquire a vast track of land, including 5 kanals and 1 marla of land owned by the petitioner. Further, challenge has been Civil Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2000 2 made to a notification, issued under Section 6 of the Act (P-4) on 15.02.2000. Notice under Section 9 of the Act (P-7) is also under challenge. Heard counsel for the parties. Vide notification, issued under Section 4, land was ordered to be acquired for a public purpose, namely Development of Third Phase sectors in Chandigarh. As per evidence on record, the petitioner purchased the land, measuring 5 Kanals 1 Marla on 16.06.1995. Admittedly, land owned by the petitioner falls within the controlled area, declared under the provisions of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (in short, 'the Periphery Act'). The petitioner in a very belligerent manner raised some construction in the year 1997 without getting any permission from the Competent Authority. When it was detected, the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 12(2) of the Periphery Act, to remove the unauthorised construction raised by it within six weeks, otherwise an action will be taken up as per law. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the competent authority through its representative on 16.07.1997. As per reply filed, action on the above said notice could not be finalised because, in the meantime, the land was made subject matter of acquisition by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 3.08.1999. It is an admitted fact that as per the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioner did not raise any objection to the Civil Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2000 3 proposed acquisition. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 15.02.2000. Before this Court, it is sole contention of the petitioner that as per the provisions of Standing Order No. 28 of the Financial Commissioner of State of Punjab, it was not open to the respondents to acquire the land, owned by a religious place. To claim parity, reference was made to an order of this Court passed in CWP No. 8094 of 2000 titled as The Chandigarh Diocese Trust Association vs. The U.T. Chandigarh Administration & Another decided on 13.12.2000, vide which, as per the policy of the respondents dated 27.11.2000, the authorities were directed to consider case of the petitioner, in that case, for release of land from acquisition. To show that a Gurudwara-religious place exists at the spot, reference was made to the entries made in the Khasra Girdwari and also to a photograph (P-8). Upon notice, reply was filed. Para no. 2 and 3 of the same are reproduced as under:- “2. That no pucca construction was on the spot before the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and it has been raised against all laws applicable to constructions like periphery Act, Capital Act. 3. That the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground that the illegal construction of religious building which has been constructed Civil Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2000 4 without prior permission of the Municipal Authority as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of WP(Civil) No. 318/2002 titled as Mahesh Parshad Gupta versus R.C. Jharkhan High Court and others communicated to all states on 12.8.2002.” It is further stated that the construction has been raised in an unauthorised manner, contrary to the provisions of the Periphery Act, to demolish it, a notice was served upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that there are numerous dubious constructions in every locality which were raised hastily to grab the Government land or to get exemption of land from the acquisition for future commercial gains. It is stated that such an institution is not entitled to get any relief by getting its land released from the acquisition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court is of the opinion that in this case, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief, as the petitioner is a law breaker. As per the admitted facts, land was purchased in the month of June, 1996, immediately thereafter, in contravention to the provisions of the Periphery Act, some construction was raised, for demolition of which notice was issued under Section 12(2) of the Periphery Act. Such a litigant is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court noticing numerous unauthorised constructions in Civil Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2000 5 the case of Anil Kumar Khurana vs. MCD 1996 (36) DRJ (DB), has observed as under:- “In an equitable jurisdiction it is the duty of the court to preserve the public good. The writ court cannot protect the wrong. A person who seeks equity must do equity. No one can be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. A person who has committed a wrong may not be heard by a writ court in support of the plea that the authority which is taking action against him has no power or jurisdiction and such power vests in another statutory authority. The law breakers can be refused equitable relief assuming they may have some case on merits. The writ court can deny hearing to such law breakers.” Similar observation was made by a Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in CWP No. 7711 of 2009 titled as New Vidya Niketan Educational Society vs. State of Haryana and Ors., decided on 5.04.2011, wherein it was observed as under:- “A litigant, who has no respect for the law, this Court feels, is not entitled to get any equity by invoking the provisions of Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Under similar circumstances, in a case titled as Cambridge International Public School v. State of Haryana and another, CWP No. 2958 of 2011, decided on March 23, Civil Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2000 6 2011, wherein the construction was raised without getting any prior permissions and a prayer was made for release of the land from acquisition, a Division Bench of this Court observed as under: “Otherwise also, we feel that on account of violation of the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. As per the provisions of that Act, to construct building/change of land use, permission is necessary from the competent authority. In the present case, it was not done. It has become a fashion to violate the provisions of law and then to make an attempt to get relief in one way or the other. Attitude of 'sab chalta hai' cannot be tolerated, this has to be stopped one day, to make the people to be respectful to the law and its provisions. A violator of law, who has no respect in the established system of rule of law, cannot be granted any relief when exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Adherence to the duties as enshrined in Article 51-A of the Constitution of India is must. One can claim his rights under Chapter III of the Constitution of India only if respect is shown to the duties as contained in the above said provision.” We have noted with concern that in most of the cases, it has become a habit of the land owners to raise Civil Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2000 7 construction without getting requisite permission, in defiance to the provisions of law. The State in those cases unnecessarily has shown compassion by releasing those constructions. The situation is deteriorating day by day. Despite promulgation of many statutes to regulate the construction for development of urban areas, the legislation has failed to achieve the desired object.” It is evident from the perusal of the Trust Deed, put on record that the petitioner is an Educational and Welfare Trust, there is no provision for setting up of a Gurudwara. It is only provided that the land be acquired at Chandigarh to construct a Bhawan thereon and to maintain and manage it in the memory of Shaheed Baba Jiwan Singh Ji. A perusal of the photographs put on record shows the existence of only four incompleted small rooms. Against one room it is shown as Gurudwara Sis Marg, the second room is shown as residence of head priest, third room is ear marked as a store and the fourth room is kept for common kitchen. There is no evidence on record that the wholly book has been placed in the alleged Gurudwara Sahib. It appears that all the construction has been raised there only with a view to save the land from acquisition. Not only as above, it is an admitted fact that an opportunity was available to the petitioner to raise any objection, to the proposed acquisition, by filing an application under Section 5-A of the Act, however, the same was not availed. If that is so, as per the Civil Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2000 8 ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and others etc. (AIR 1999 S.C.3822); the acquisition qua the petitioner had become final. In that judgment it has been observed as under:- “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 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. 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. Civil Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2000 9 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 content that in some other cases, the notification was quashed and that such quashing would also enure to their benefit.” Furthermore, in the written statement, it is clearly stated that the construction has been raised in a very hasty manner only with a view to defeat acquisition of the land. To the averments made in the written statement, replication has not been filed to controvert the same. So far as grant of parity to the petitioner, to get benefit of policy of the respondents is concerned, in view of the facts given in the earlier part of this order the same can not be granted to a litigant who has come to the Court with ill intentions. Such a litigant is not entitled to get a relief from this Court. It has been noted by the concerned that in large number of cases it has become a habit of the land owners to raise constructions without getting requisite permission, in defiance to the provisions of law. The State in those cases has unnecessarily shown compassion by releasing their land for construction which we feel is not justified. The situation is deteriorating day by day. Despite promulgation of many statues to regulate the construction for development of urban areas the Civil Writ Petition No. 7898 of 2000 10 legislature has failed to achieve the desired objectives. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. [JASBIR SINGH] JUDGE [RAKESH KUMAR GARG] JUDGE 20th April, 2011 Shivani Kaushik