CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3233 OF 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: January 12, 2011. Parties Name Hari Ram and others ...PETITIONERS VERSUS Union Territory Chandigarh and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mrs. Abha Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioners Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for the respondents. Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This order will dispose of three writ petitions, i.e., C.W.Ps. No. 3233 of 1993, 17931 of 2009 and 6897 of 2010. To dictate order, facts are being taken from CWP No. 3233 of 1993. The petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) on January 31, 1992, and January 29, 1993, respectively to acquire a vast track of land including small plots of land measuring 2 to 3 Marlas (10 Marlas only in one case), owned by them. It is not in dispute that the petitioners belong to poor strata of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3233 OF 1993 -2- the society and they have constructed their houses before issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, except petitioner in CWP No. 17931 of 2009. It is stated by the petitioners that when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, land owned by about 800 people was also made part of it, wherein unauthorised colony was in existence. When notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued, those houses were exempted from acquisition and unauthorised construction in that regard was regularised. However, that relief was not given to them despite request made in that regard. The respondents have put on record a detailed site plan showing land owned by the petitioners and the land, which was left out of acquisition when notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued. Taking note of the same, following order was passed by this Court on November 30, 2010: “In CWP No. 17931 of 2009, following order was passed by this Court on July 26, 2010: “Counsel for the respondents – U.T. Administration is directed to put on record the site plan showing detail of the land which was subject matter of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the site plan, the released area be also shown distinctly. Reference be also made to the house of the petitioner in this writ petition. Counsel is also directed to state the position as to whether under the National Rehabilitation Policy, petitioner is to be rehabilitated or not. Needful be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3233 OF 1993 -3- done before the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 21.9.2010.” In response thereto, copy of the site plan has been put on record, in which it is not disputed that a huge unauthorised colony consisting of about 800 houses was left out of acquisition. It is also shown in the site plan that most of the houses of the petitioners also fall in one cluster. To deprive them the same benefit, which was given to residents of an unauthorised colony, it is only said that leaving out their land would affect overall planning of the area. Be that as it may, we are tentatively satisfied that the above said objection is not maintainable. The petitioners' construction, on some portion of the land, was there when notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. We direct counsel for UT Chandigarh Administration, to get instructions as to whether the authorities are ready to give to the petitioners a plot of the same size of land,at some other place in ManiMajra in lieu of land, owned by them, as shown in the site plan . On request, adjourned to December 20, 2010.” Thereafter, counsel for the respondents stated that it is not possible to allot alternative sites to the petitioners. Heard counsel for the parties. Taking note of the facts on record, we are of the view that a grave discrimination has been done to the petitioners. As per site plan put on record, about 14 houses of the petitioners fall in one cluster and that too CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3233 OF 1993 -4- on one side of the acquired area. One house is situated on the road and another is situated next to the land already acquired. It is also apparent from the site plan that more than 800 houses, situated in an unauthorised colony, were left out of acquisition,after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. To show that the petitioners have been treated discriminately, following averments have been made in the writ petition: “15. Now on 21.1.1993, a notification u/s 6 of Land Acquisition Act has been issued which includes the houses of the petitioners. A copy of this is placed on record as Annexure P/3. That all the houses approximately 800 in Shanti Nagar, Darshani Bagh etc., which had been regularised by Respondent No. 3, have been released from this acquisition and they are excluded in Sec. 6 notification under Land Acquisition Act. Areas released are shown in Green colour on the Map. 16. That number of houses in Pocket No. 7 have also been released because there were constructed houses on them. Others constructed houses not fitting in the planning of the area (Pocket No. 7) were relocated by giving them alternative sites.” To the above averments, following reply was filed by the respondents: “15. That para No. 15 of the writ petition is matter of record. 16. That the averments made in para No. 16 of the writ petition does not relate to the land in dispute and has no bearing on the facts/ decision of the present case.” CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3233 OF 1993 -5- It is apparent from the records that the petitioners, who are very poor persons and have constructed their houses on small pieces of land, have been put to a loss, whereas benefit has been granted to many similarly situated persons. Such a discrimination is not permissible. Furthermore, counsel for the respondents have failed to show that release of petitioners' land will hamper the overall development in the scheme. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar situation in the case of Hari Ram and another v. The State of Haryana and others, JT 2010(2) SC 235 , observed as under: “It is true that any action or order contrary to law does not confer any right upon any person for similar treatment. It is equally true that a landowner whose land has been acquired for public purpose by following the prescribed procedure cannot claim as a matter of right for release of his/her land from acquisition but where the State Government exercises its power under Section 48 of the Act for withdrawal from acquisition in respect of a particular land, the landowners who are similarly situated have right of similar treatment by the State Government. Equality of citizens' rights is one of the fundamental pillars on which edifice of rule of law rests. All actions of the State have to be fair and for legitimate reasons. The Government has obligation of acting with substantial fairness and consistency in considering the representations of the landowners for withdrawal from acquisition whose lands have been acquired under the same acquisition proceedings. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3233 OF 1993 -6- The State Government cannot pick and choose some landowners and release their land from acquisition and deny the same benefit to other landowners by creating artificial distinction. Passing different orders in exercise of its power under Section 48 of the Act in respect of persons similarly situated relating to same acquisition proceedings and for same public purpose is definitely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and must be held to be discriminatory.” Same is the situation in this case. Houses of about 800 persons, situated in an unauthorised colony, which was part of the acquisition, were released from acquisition, whereas said relief was declined to the petitioners by raising flimsy grounds. The land was ordered to be acquired way back in the year 1992. The prices of land in Chandigarh are so high that if the petitioners are dispossessed, it will not be possible for them to even buy a few yards of land, what to talk of constructing houses thereon with the amount which they will receive for their small houses. A poor citizen cannot be left without roof above his head. It is bounden duty of the State to provide shelter to all the citizens. In the name of development, they cannot be uprooted and made to live their life in unauthorised tenements. An offer was given to the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioners. However, the said offer was declined without any justification. Under the circumstances, acquisition qua the land of the petitioners cannot be sustained. However, by taking an over all view of the entire situation and also noting alternative prayer made by the petitioner for allotment of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3233 OF 1993 -7- alternative place, we keep it open to the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioners by allotting them alternative plot of same size and compensation for the superstructures, failing which, the acquisition of petitioners' land shall stand quashed. This writ petitions stand disposed of with above said observation. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge January 12, 2011. DKC