IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3030 of 2006 Date of Decision: 14.5.2008 Manoj Gulshan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.K. Chhibbar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ranjit Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG Haryana, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notification dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P-7) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration dated 7.2.2006 (Annexure P-10) made under Section 6 of the Act in respect of the land of the petitioner. At the outset it is appropriate to mention that acquisition proceedings which are subject matter of challenge in the instant petition were also CWP No. 3030 of 2006 impugned in CWP No. 2835 of 2006 alongwith other bunch of petitions which were dismissed on 22.1.2008 by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (M.M. Kumar, J.) is a member. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner is stated to be owner and attorney holder of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 19/2 and 19/3, situated in village Asawarpur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. It is also claimed that the petitioner has also entered into an agreement to purchase Khasra No. 19/1 and paid part of the sale consideration to the Gram Panchayat, Village Asawarpur. The Gram Panchayat also passed Resolution No. 61, dated 31.10.2005 and recommended to the higher authorities for sale of Khasra No. 19/1 in favour of the petitioner. It has been further claimed that the petitioner is in physical possession of the land in question and running a multi purpose gymnasium and ‘akhara’ for the benefit of the local residents, who regularly use the same as a recreational activity. The built up area is approximately 2100 square feet in an area of about 15000 square yards. The petitioner proposed to set up recreation, fun and games park on the aforementioned land and applied for change of land use under Rule 26-A of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Rules, 1965 and submitted a proposal alongwith requisite fee to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana-respondent No. 3 on 5.10.2005 (P-5). Subsequently, reminders dated 15.10.2005 and 24.12.2005 (P- 6) were also sent by the petitioner for grant of permission for change of land use. 2 CWP No. 3030 of 2006 3. In the meanwhile, the Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, decided to set up ‘Sonepat Kundli Multi Functional Urban Complex Project’ by developing Sectors 65, 66, 67 and 68 in Sonepat District. It is pertinent to mention that the said project was initiated by the State Government on 27.5.1995 and final notification regarding development of Multi Functional Urban Complex was issued on 2.9.2003, which was published in the Haryana Government Gazette on 9.9.2003 (P-3). It was proposed that there would be about 8.54% open space in the total area of the complex for development for sports activities, parks, green belts and recreational use. A final development plan for the said project was also issued by the Town and Country Planning Department (P-4). In order to accomplish the said project, on 17.11.2005 a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued (P-7). The land belonging to the petitioner was also included in the said notification. On 16.12.2005, the petitioner filed his objections under Section 5-A of the Act (P-8). On 16.12.2005, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to come for personal hearing on 4.1.2006 (P-9). On 7.2.2006, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made (P-10). 4. The stand of the respondents in the written statement is that the land has been acquired by the respondent State for setting up of the Rajiv Gandhi Education City Sonepat, which is being developed as a ‘Knowledge City’ and which would have top class infrastructure and support services, so as to attract world class educational institutes to open their campuses in that education city. The project is part of an endeavor to invite the world's best education 3 CWP No. 3030 of 2006 talent in this era of globalization by developing this education city as a hub of learning. The project is stated to be of substantial importance to the State. In that regard the respondent state has invited “Expression of interest” for consultancy service so that the proposed education city should be planned to meet future area requirements, planning development, financing, legal and administrative mechanism for the development of the State. The acquisition is for larger public interest and as such the petitioner can have no lawful grievance in that regard. 5. It has further been claimed that a High Level Committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Administrator, HUDA was constituted for deciding the location of the education site and the present site was found to be suitable. It is claimed that all necessary steps envisaged by Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the Act have been taken. After consideration of the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector as also the Joint Site Inspection Committee, the Government decided that land measuring 41.65 acres be released from acquisition which pertains to village Aswarpur, Sewl, Khewda and Badkhals. 6. As far as the application dated 5.10.2005, submitted by the petitioner for grant of permission for change of land use is concerned, it has been pointed out that the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana-respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 21.12.2005, had already intimated to the petitioner about rejection of his application for change of land use. It has further been asserted that the Land Acquisition Collector after hearing each and every 4 CWP No. 3030 of 2006 objector, who presented himself, made a separate report to the State Government. Other than this, the Joint Site Inspection Committee also sent its report to the Government. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book we find that this petition is liable to be dismissed. A large number of petitions were dismissed on 25.5.2006, where acquisition proceedings arising out of impugned notifications were challenged, which includes CWP Nos. 2747, 2748, 3234, 3441, 3444, 4300, 4297, 4820, 4993, 5089, 5333, 4305, 5447, 5042, 5469, 6517, and 6522 of 2006. The land measuring 2007.60 acres has been acquired in the present case for setting up Rajiv Gandhi Education City, which is state-of-art and prestigious project. In similar circumstances CWP No. 2835 of 2006 (M/s Coral Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. And another v. State of Haryana and others) was dismissed on 22.1.2008. The public purpose for which the land is required far out weights the right of any private individual. It is further worthwhile to notice that the objections under Section 5-A of the Act filed by the petitioner have been duly noticed and considered by the Land Acquisition Collector. 8. The argument advanced by Mr. R.K. Chhibbar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that once the petitioner has applied for grant of permission for change of land use for the same purpose for which the land is being acquired and, therefore, the land should be released from acquisition, would pale insignificance because it has come on record in the written statement that the application dated 5.10.2005, filed by the petitioner for grant of permission for change 5 CWP No. 3030 of 2006 of land use has already rejected by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana-respondent No. 3 on 21.12.2005. The instant writ petition is, thus, liable to be dismissed on this additional ground. It is further conceded position that the land belonging to the petitioner falls within the controlled area. It appears that the public purpose of establishing education city of world class is likely to be obstructed if the land belonging to the petitioner is released from acquisition. He would be given compensation as per the act/rules for any structure falling within the acquired area. 9. As a sequel to the above discussion and the reasons, this petition fails, which is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) May 14, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 6