C.W.P. No.3494 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.3494 of 1990 Date of Decision: January 11, 2010 Satish Kumar .......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos.2971 and 3011 of 1990. Mr.RM Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos.2896, 3011, 3012, 3176 and 2991 of 1990. Mr.CB Goel, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos.2961, 3004, 5073 and 3003 of 1990. Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for petitioner Nos.38 in CWP No.3011 of 1990. Mr.Praveen Chander Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP Nos.3494, 2966, 2969, 3148, 3149,3150,3151,3152,3154,3155,3156 and 3721 of 1990. Mr.JL Malhotra, Advocate for Mr.VK Jain, Senior Advocate for petitioner in CWP Nos.3494, 2963,2964,2966,2967,2969,2970,2971,2972,2973,2974,3014, 3026,3100 and 3194 of 1990. Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Notes: 1) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- C.W.P. No.3494 of 1990 -2- M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of a bunch of 33 petitions* as common questions of law and facts are involved. However, the facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.3494 of 1990. The challenge in these petitions is to the notification dated 30.1.1989 (Annexure P2), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). The declaration under Section 6 of the Act (Annexure P3) acquiring the land was made on 25.1.1990. The public purpose of acquiring the land declared in the aforesaid notifications was for development and utilisation of land for commercial area in Sector 30 of village Silokhera and Sukhrali, District Gurgaon. The averments made in the petitions are that the land belonging to the influential persons had either not been acquired or it had later been released. In para 6 of this petition such like allegations have been made. It has also been averred that huge area has been released from acquisition which would be evident from the perusal of para 8. The writ petitions were admitted on 13.11.1990. The interim directions were issued staying the dispossession and further proceedings against the petitioners. The matter had been contested and respondents have filed their separate replies. Mr.RM Singh and Mr.Puneet Bali, learned counsel for the petitioners have, at the outset, brought to the notice of this Court that the aforesaid notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were also the C.W.P. No.3494 of 1990 -3- subject matter of challenge in Civil Writ Petition No.3059 of 1990 on similar grounds. The said writ petition was also decided by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.12.2006, and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was quashed. In the appeal i.e. LPA No.179 of 2008 filed by the respondent-State, the view taken by the learned Single Judge was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed on 24.9.2008. The Letters' Patent Bench has noticed the subsequent events which had taken place after the filing of the petition, which are to the effect that the land belonging to many builders covered by the aforesaid acquisition proceedings, had been released which include M/s East India Hotels Ltd., Gurgaon, M/s DLF Universal Limited and S/Sh.Gopal Ram @ Gopi, Jai Bhagwan, Ram Singh, Sri Niwas, Kamal Kumar, Shyam Lata, Hari Chand and Smt.Nirmal Kanta wife of Sh.Daya Nand. Reference has also been made to the instances of releasing acquired land measuring 30 acres vide letter dated 19.9.1995. The Letter' Patent Bench has also taken notice of the fact that a collaboration agreement was entered into by various builders with the owners of the land who were later on granted licence by the Town and Country Planning Department for establishing and developing the land for various purposes, like Cyber Park Colony, Commercial Colony, Group Housing Society etc. On the basis of the aforesaid instances, the Division Bench has concluded that the land had been released in favour of several persons but the same was to be developed privately by the builders and that 'A' class residential construction existed which deserved to be exempted from acquisition. An inference of discrimination was found to be patent in ignoring to consider the case of the petitioners while selectively releasing the land of other similarly situated persons. It is well settled that power of acquisition of C.W.P. No.3494 of 1990 -4- land cannot be used for profiteering and in that regard reliance is placed on Bhagat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 534 and BEML Employees House Building Cooperative Society Limited v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 2004 (SC) 5054. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the bunch of these petitions is squarely covered by the opinion expressed by this Court in its judgment dated 24.9.2008 rendered in LPA No.179 of 2008. Accordingly, the notification dated 25.1.1990 issued under Section 6 of the Act stands quashed with liberty in the same terms as has been granted by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.3059 of 1990. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. *Sr. No. CWP No. Parties name 1 3494 of 1990 Satish Kumar v Haryana State 2 5073 of 1990 Ram Parshad & ors. v. Haryana State 3 2896 of 1990 Chanderwati v. State of Haryana 4 2961 of 1990 Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana 5 2963 of 1990 Jai Parkash & others v. State of Hy.etc. 6 2964 of 1990 Vijay Avtar v. State of Hy. etc. 7 2965 of 1990 Hindustan Rubber Foram Udyog & ors. V State of Haryana and others 8 2967 of 1990 Mange Ram etc. v. State of Hr. etc. 9 2969 of 1990 Hindustan Rubber Foram Udyog & ors. V State of Haryana and others 10 2970 of 1990 Ram Singh etc. v. State of Haryana 11 2971 of 1990 Ram Kumar v State of Haryana 12 2972 of 1990 Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana 13 2974 of 1990 Siri Ram and ors.v. State of Haryana 14 2991 of 1990 Sat Narain Gupta v. State of Haryana 15 3004 of 1990 Subhash Kumar & ors. V State of Haryana C.W.P. No.3494 of 1990 -5- *Sr. No. CWP No. Parties name 16 3011 of 1990 Pritam Singh & ors. v. State of Haryana 17 3012 of 1990 Pritam Singh & ors. v. State of Haryana & ors. 18 3014 of 1990 Ram Jiwan & ors. vs.State of Haryana & another 19 3026 of 1990 Manju Yadav v.State of Haryana & another 20 3100 of 1990 Chaurrasia Brah v. State of Haryana & another 21 3117 of 1990 Swami Dhirendera Brahmachari & ors. v. State of Haryana & ors. 22 3148 of 1990 India Chemical & another v. State of Haryana 23 3149 of 1990 Balram & ors. v. State of Haryana 24 3150 of 1990 Balram & ors. v. State of Haryana 25 3151 of 1990 Aikta Marble Inds. & anr. v. State of Haryana 26 3152 of 1990 Parkash v. State of Haryana & ors. 27 3153 of 1990 Pritam Singh & ors. State of Haryana & ors. 28 3154 of 1990 Hindustan Rubber Foram Udyog and ors. v.State of Haryana & ors. 29 3155 of 1990 Hindustan Rubber Foram Udyog and ors. v.State of Haryana & ors. 30 3156 of 1990 Hoshiar Singh v.State of Haryana & ors. 31 3176 of 1990 Ajit Singh & ors. v.State of Haryana & ors. 32 3204 of 1990 Pritam Singh & ors. v.State of Haryana & ors. 33 3721 of 1990 Jamuna Dass & ors. v.State of Haryana & ors. ( M. M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) January 11, 2010 JUDGE SRM