IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 15618 of 2007 & connected petitions. Date of Decision: January 27, 2010 Suraj Bhan …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate, Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Arun Singhal, Advocate, Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate, Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate, Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, Mr. Ravinder Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana, with Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the respondent(s). 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. By this order we propose to dispose of a bunch of 38 petitions2 because the notifications under challenge are the same. These petitions seeks quashing of notification dated 31.7.2006, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 9.8.2007, issued under Section 6 of the Act, whereby land has been acquired for a public purpose, namely, C.W.P. No. 15618 of 2007 & connected petitions. for development of Industrial Model Township at Faridabad. 2. Few facts may first be noticed. On 31.7.2006, the respondent State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring land measuring 1832 Acres 4 Kanals 15 Marlas falling under the revenue estate of villages Mujeri, Tigaon, Nawada, Unchagaon, Chandawali, Machhgar and Sotai, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. The land owners, including the petitioners filed their objections under Section 5-A of the Act. In all, 336 objections were received against the aforementioned notification by the Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad. After considering the objections under Section 5-A of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad, submitted his report dated 14/19.2.2007 recommending release of 7 Acres 1 Kanal and 7 Marlas of land. It was also found that there were constructions/residential houses on the land parcels of 264 objectors, which were in existence prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, but the Collector recommended for acquisition of the same. On 9.8.2007, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued for acquiring 1786 Acres 0 Kanal and 2 Marla of land. Thereafter, on 28.7.2008, the Collector announced the award in respect of the acquired land. 3. The petitioners in these petitions have challenged the acquisition primarily on the ground that they have raised the construction much prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, therefore, their constructed area is required to be released from acquisition. They have also raised the issue of discrimination alleging that the respondents have adopted pick and choose method 2 C.W.P. No. 15618 of 2007 & connected petitions. while releasing some part of the land from acquisition. It has been highlighted that more than 46 acres of land has been left out of acquisition while issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act, as is evident from the notifications dated 31.7.2006 and 9.8.2007, issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively. 4. The respondents have filed their written statements in respective cases justifying the acquisition asserting that the land in question is required to achieve the purpose of economic development through industrialisation. It has been submitted that Faridabad- Ballabhgarh Industrial Complex is situated on the Sher Shah Suri Marg, known as Delhi-Mathura Road at a distance of 32 Kms. from Delhi. It has been emphasised that Faridabad has been developed as one of the largest hub of industries in the country and also forms a part of the National Capital Region, which is well connected by road and rail network. There are more than 15000 industrial units in District Faridabad. It has been further asserted that the Industrial Model Township at Faridabad, would provide an industrial estate with modern infrastructure facilities and other public utilities such as water supply, sewerage treatment plant, electrification, drainage, transportation and communication etc. Keeping this in view, the land in question is very essential. It has also been pointed out that all the provisions of the Act have been meticulously adhered to. The Land Acquisition Collector after hearing the objectors has already recommended for release of those parts of the land which do not fall under the planned development. However, certain parcels of land where construction has been raised prior to issuance of notification 3 C.W.P. No. 15618 of 2007 & connected petitions. under Section 4 of the Act could not be released because the same were not found viable. 5. On 7.1.2009, when the matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, learned State counsel fairly stated that the reply filed by the Land Acquisition Collector is not comprehensive and sought time to place on record appropriate charts giving particulars why the land of the petitioners cannot be released. On 28.1.2009, again time was taken to file an affidavit of the concerned Secretary to Government of Haryana, who has taken a reasoned decision in the matter for release of 46 acres of land. 6. On 22.10.2009, an affidavit has been filed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Industries and Commerce Department. It has been submitted that upon receipt of the recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad, dated 14/19.2.2007, a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, was sought in the matter. The Deputy Commissioner after visiting the site sent his report with regard to the structures on the land measuring 54 Acres 0 Kanal 1 Marla and recommended for release of land measuring 36 Acres 6 Kanals 16 Marlas pertaining to villages Mujeri, Chandawali and Machhgarh, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad. However, he did not recommend release of land measuring 17 Acres 1 Kanal and 5 Marlas, wherein the structures were scattered over the land in question. The Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (HSIIDC), which is the nodal agency, also pointed out that the structures falling within the 4 C.W.P. No. 15618 of 2007 & connected petitions. development plan road network may not be considered for release. It was found that 8 acres 1 Kanal and 3 Marlas of land comes in the way of the development plan road circulation for the designated zone. It was also observed that all the Khasra numbers, except one Khasra No. 22//19/1, measuring 2 Kanals 9 Marlas of village Chandawali, were common in the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad and the Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad. Thus, the total land under structures in both the reports was worked out to be 54 Acres 2 Kanals and 10 Marlas. Thereafter, a proposal for notifying the land under Section 6 of the Act was submitted to the State Government, which was approved by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Industries Department on 1.8.2007. However, it was observed that the residential structures existing on the proposed land be kept out of acquisition, unless the same was required for essential services. In this manner, only 46 Acres 1 Kanal and 17 Marlas of land has been released at the time of issuance of notification, dated 9.8.2007, under Section 6 of the Act, whereas land measuring 8 Acres 1 Kanal and 3 Marlas, which is essentially required for the development plan roads, was included in the aforementioned notification. 7. In para 6 of the affidavit dated 22.10.2009, it has been further stated that on detailed scrutiny and super-imposing the shajra plan on the development plan, it has been observed that certain khasra numbers have not been included in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, even though parts of the land under these khasra numbers are also situated within the development plan road. The details of those 5 C.W.P. No. 15618 of 2007 & connected petitions. khasra numbers has been placed on record as Annexure R-1 along with the affidavit. It has also been asserted that in order to rectify the aforementioned lapse, steps are being taken for fresh acquisition of these land parcels. 8. It is also pertinent to notice here that on 7.12.2007, the State of Haryana has also formulated a policy for rehabilitation and resettlement of landowners-land acquisition oustees, wherein various benefits are to be given to such persons such as annuity, allotment of plots by Haryana Urban Development Authority and Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited. It has also been provided under the policy that HSIIDC and HUDA would take steps for creation of social infrastructure and/or employment in the villages falling within the acquired land. The policy for allotment of plots would be applicable only for lands acquired for HUDA and HSIIDC. The said policy has been made applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 5.3.2005 and would cover all those cases of acquisition in which awards of compensation have been announced on or after 5.3.2005. A copy of the aforementioned policy dated 7.12.2007, is taken on record as Mark ‘A’. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. We do not find any ground for holding that the land in question has been acquired without any public purpose. It is also conceded position that the land parcels having structures, which do not form part of development plan, have already been released from acquisition and only those areas have been acquired which could not be spared because it affects the planning. We are 6 C.W.P. No. 15618 of 2007 & connected petitions. also not convinced with the contention of the petitioners that they have been meted out with discrimination. In the affidavit dated 22.10.2009, it has been candidly and fairly accepted that certain khasra numbers could not have been included in the declaration dated 9.8.2007, issued under Section 6 of the Act and steps are being taken for fresh acquisition of those land parcels to rectify the mistake. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court has already upheld the acquisition under the same notifications in the case of Nabbal and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 15470 of 2007, decided on 7.1.2009). Other than this, as has been noticed above, the State of Haryana has already formulated a policy for rehabilitation and resettlement of land owners-land acquisition oustees, dated 7.12.2007. The said policy is also applicable to the petitioners. Thus, they can avail the benefits enumerated under the said policy in addition to the compensation awarded to them as a result of acquisition of their land. 10. As a sequel to the above discussion, these petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. 11. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of all the connected petitions. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY TEWARI) January 27, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 7 2 1CWP No.15618 of 2007 Suraj Bhan v. State of Haryana and others2CWP No.16418 of 2007 Tara Chand and others v. State of Haryana and others 3CWP No.16422 of 2007 Uddan and others v. State of Haryana and others 4CWP No.2580 of 2008 Chander v. State of Haryana and others 5CWP No.2593 of 2008 Narain Singh v. State of Haryana and others 6CWP No.10021 of 2008 Om Parkash Yadav v. State of Haryana and others 7CWP No.11452 of 2008 Karan Singh And others v. State of Haryana and others 8CWP No.11692 of 2008 Ombir Singh v. State of Haryana and others 9CWP No.11757 of 2008 Sunil Dutt Sharma v. State of Haryana and others 10CWP No.11864 of 2008 Vir Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others11CWP No.12502 of 2008 Mehtab Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another12CWP No.12530 of 2008 Bimla Devi v. State of Haryana and another13CWP No.12544 of 2008 Surjan Singh v. State of Haryana and another14CWP No.12590 of 2008 Dharmbir Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another15CWP No.12636 of 2008 Dal Chand Yadav And others v. State of Haryana and others 16CWP No.12877 of 2008 Ram Dhan and another v. State of Haryana and others17CWP No.12953 of 2008 Harwati and others v. State of Haryana and others 18CWP No.13074 of 2008 Jaggi Ram v. State of Haryana and others 19CWP No.13097 of 2008 Umesh Aggarwal and others v. State of Haryana and others 20CWP No.13164 of 2008 Sardara Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another 21CWP No.13414 of 2008 M/S Shri Radha Krishna Industries v. Union Of India and others 22CWP No.13519 of 2008 Jawahar Singh v. State of Haryana and others23CWP No.13520 of 2008 Chander Pal v. State of Haryana and others24CWP No.13521 of 2008 Mahabir Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others25CWP No.13522 of 2008 Jagbir v. State of Haryana and others26CWP No.13560 of 2008 Rahul v. State of Haryana and others27CWP No.13567 of 2008 Bachu Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others28CWP No.13741 of 2008 Ayub v. State of Haryana and others29CWP No.13788 of 2008 Lekh Raj v. State of Haryana and others30CWP No.14410 of 2008 Lalit Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others31CWP No.14740 of 2008 Kalu Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others32CWP No.15429 of 2008 Sukhi Ram v. State of Haryana and others33CWP No.15931 of 2008 Satpal and others v. State of Haryana and others 34CWP No.16327 of 2008 Karampal and others v. State of Haryana and others35CWP No.16328 of 2008 Sukhbir and another v. State of Haryana 36CWP No.17659 of 2008 Rohtash and others v. State of Haryana and others 37CWP No.20086 of 2008 Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana and another38CWP No.1234 of 2009 Samaybir @ Shyambir Singh v. State of Haryana and another (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY TEWARI) January 27, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor