CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13129 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 14, 2011. Parties Name Lal Chand and others ...PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 2-HUDA. Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated June 21, 2010, (P-12), vide which order dated July 23, 2008, releasing land falling in Khasra No. 130//1/2, measuring 5 Kanals, was withdrawn. Brief facts: As per record, a notification under Section 4 of the Land CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13129 OF 2010 -2- Acquisition Act, 1894,(in short the Act) was issued on June 4, 1997, proposing to acquire land measuring 6.81 Acres for a public purpose, namely,to develop the land for residential and commercial area. It is not in dispute that the petitioners along with other co-sharers filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act, in which it was categorically stated that in the land in dispute, they had constructed a shop, and rest of the area was lying vacant. It was also so noticed by the Land Acquisition Collector when making his recommendations to acquire the land in question. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on June 2, 1998, for that land and an Award was passed on June 1, 2000, for an area measuring 4.21 Acres. At that time, rest of the land was subject matter of litigation. It is not in dispute that the petitioners came to this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 8452 of 2000, in which an interim stay was granted. However, subsequent thereto, qua the petitioners in this case, the writ petition, mentioned above, was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated July 31, 2008 (P-5). At the time when that order was passed, the petitioners did not reserve any right to pursue the matter before the competent authority. Record further reveals that to get their land released, the petitioners had started the process way back in the month of July, 1999. They continued to write letters to the authorities concerned, which is apparent from the document (P-2) at page 28 of the paper book. In the meantime, the State Government released about 30 Marlas of land in favour of one Kuldhir Singh vide order dated September 5, 2000. It is not in dispute that Shri Kuldhir Singh was owner of only 15 Marlas of land, when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. He purchased about 14 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13129 OF 2010 -3- Marlas of land in the month of March, 2000. He also purchased 40 square yards of land on May 10, 2005. It is an admitted fact that Shri Kuldhir Singh had never challenged acquisition of land by filing any writ petition. It appears that his land was released because his father Shri Sher Singh was Political Advisor to the then Chief Minister of Haryana. In the meantime, during the pendency of their writ petition, the petitioners filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta, State of Haryana, on September 22, 2007. It was their grievance that the application for release of land, filed by Shri Kuldhir Singh was decided immediately, whereas on their application, which was pending since 1999, no order was passed. The learned Lok Ayukta, State of Haryana, vide order dated July 24, 2008, issued directions to the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary that he should conduct an enquiry into the matter and fix responsibility of the officials, who were remiss in dealing with pending application of the petitioners. It is necessary to note here, some of the observations made by the learned Lok Ayukta, State of Haryana: “It is evident that application of Shri Kuldhir Singh Badshami, who is stated to be the son of the then Political Advisor of the then Chief Minister, was dealt with at a lightening pace and his land released within four months whereas the case of the complainants has been unnecessarily kept pending for more than 8 years. It is pertinent to mention that the land of the complainants and that of Shri Kuldhir Singh Badshami falls in the same Khasra number. The Director has clearly admitted that there is no explanation as to why and how it had happened. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13129 OF 2010 -4- Under these circumstances, the only inference that can be drawn is that the officials of the department had dealt with the case of Shri Kuldhir Singh Badshami in an extraordinary manner because of his high connections whereas the case of the complainants, who are ordinary citizens, was kept pending for eight long years. Had they not filed the present complaint it would have still been pending. This conduct by itself is enough to shake the confidence of the common man in the working of the administration.” After passing of that order, the respondents issued a letter dated August 29, 2008, to the petitioners directing them to deposit 75% of amount towards Extra Development Charges. The petitioners obliged the authorities by depositing that amount and thereafter, an agreement was entered into between the petitioners and the respondents on September 11, 2008. It is not in dispute that another complaint was pending before the Lok Ayukta regarding arbitrary release of land in favour of Kuldhir Singh, mentioned above. During enquiry, it was found that the land had been wrongly released in favour of Kuldhir Singh by the then officers. Proceedings were initiated to cancel that allotment. Simultaneously vide order dated May 20, 2009, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners as to why release of their land be not cancelled. The petitioners filed a reply thereto. After hearing them, impugned order dated June 21, 2010, was passed. Relevant portion of the impugned order reads thus: “2. On a complaint received by the Hon'ble Lokayukta, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13129 OF 2010 -5- Haryana, the decision of the Govt. regarding releasing your land adjoining with the land Shri Kuldhir Singh has been declared to be wrong. The Govt. has now decided to withdraw the orders of release of land of Shri Kuldhir Singh, the same being passed wrongly. Since your land was also decided to be released while considering your case similar to the case of Shri Kuldhir Singh, therefore, the Govt. has decided to withdraw the orders dated 23.7.2008 relating to the release of your land comprising in khasra No. 130//1/2 (30 marlas) on the same grounds.” Hence this writ petition. It is contention of the counsel for the petitioners that once an order releasing their land has been passed, they having deposited 75% amount towards external development charges and an agreement also having been entered into with the authorities concerned, it is not open to the respondents to cancel release of the land. It is necessary to mention here as per admitted facts, the land of the petitioners was released on account of release of land in favour of Kuldhir Singh, whose release of land was also cancelled vide order dated June 21, 2010. He has also filed Civil Writ Petition No. 17104 of 2010, to impugn that order. However, at the time of arguments today, the said writ petition was not pressed by his counsel. The facts in this case clearly indicate that release of land in favour of Kuldhir Singh and subsequent thereto in favour of the petitioners was nothing but misuse of powers by the respondents. It is not in dispute CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13129 OF 2010 -6- that Award was passed on June 1, 2000 and possession was taken immediately thereafter. The land thus vested with the State free from any incumbrance. As per established law, there is no power vested with the Land Acquisition Collector to release any land after passing of an Award. However, such power appears to have been arbitrarily misused in favour of Kuldhir Singh, who purchased most of his land after issuance of notifications under Section 4 of the Act. On that very basis, land was released in favour of the petitioners. Once release order in favour of Kuldhir Singh stands recalled, there is no question of any discrimination, on the basis of which petitioners may claim release of their land. Consequently their grievance regarding cancellation of release of land earlier ordered does not survive. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2098 of 2009 (Court on its own motion v. R.N.Prashaar and others) decided on October 28, 2010, has specifically held that once possession has been taken after passing an Award, the land shall vest in the State and it is not open to the authorities to release the same. In view of facts, mentioned above, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned order dated June 21, 2010. As such, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge February 14, 2011. DKC CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13129 OF 2010 -7-