Civil Writ Petition No.14393 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14393 of 1990 Date of Decision: 19.04.2011 Smt.Satya Bhama wd/o Shri Gian Chand & Ors. ....petitioners Versus The State of Haryana & ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUAMR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the notifications dated 25.08.1989 and 24.09.1990 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(in short 'the Act'), respectively, acquiring a vast tract of land measuring about 85 acres including the plots of the petitioners for a public purpose namely 'for the development and utilisation of land as residential, commercial and institutional area for Sector 19, Part-III under the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority in the areas of village Patti Kaisth Seth, Kaithal, Hadbast No.24, village Patti Gadar, Kaithal, Hadbast No.19, Tehsil Kaithal, District Kurukshetra. As per the averments made in the writ petition, petitioners No.2 to 4 are teachers in Government Senior Secondary School, Kaithal Civil Writ Petition No.14393 of 1990 2 and petitioner No.1 is the widow of late Gian Chand, who was also a teacher along with other petitioners. 17 teachers, including the petitioners No.2 to 4 and Gian Chand i.e.predecessor-in-interest of petitioner No.1 had purchased an area of 9K-12M comprised in khasra No.160/27 in Patti Kaisth Seth, Kaithal, for establishing a residential colony within the municipal limits of Kaithal town. The said land was sought to be acquired by respondents for establishing Sector 19, Urban Estate, Kaithal. However,on their representation, land measuring 9K-12M comprising the aforesaid teachers' colony was ordered to be released from acquisition vide letter dated 07.08.1983(Annexure P-1). According to the petitioners, the respondent-authorities had also promised to change the alignment of roads for saving the land of the teachers' colony from acquisition. It is the further case of the petitioners that separate agreements were entered into by the respondents with the teachers who had their plots as shown in the site plan(Annexure P-3). In spite of the aforesaid agreement, the respondents issued notification dated 25.09.1989(Annexure P-5) under Section 4 of the Act which includes the plots of the petitioners showing their intention to acquire the said land. The petitioners filed their objections under Section 5-A of the Act and appeared before respondent No.2 and submitted that their lands have already been exempted from acquisition and therefore Government was estopped from acquiring their lands. However, the objections were rejected and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 24.09.1990 acquiring lands of the petitioners. However, the lands of the teachers entered at Sr.No.1 to 7 and 11 to 15 in the plan(Annexure P-3) was left out of acquisition. The petitioners have come to this Court challenging the aforesaid notifications submitting that the action of the respondents in acquiring the land of the petitioners amounts to hostile discrimination against them as plots of other teachers at Sr.No.1 to 7 and 11 to 15 as per Civil Writ Petition No.14393 of 1990 3 site plan(Annexure P-3) have been left out of acquisition, whereas the plots of the petitioners which are similarly situated have not been released and thus the action of the respondents was mala fide in issuing the notifications for acquisition and the impugned notifications were liable to be acquired. Further argument was raised to the effect that in view of the agreement entered into by the State of Haryana with the petitioners on 01.10.1984, the lands of the petitioners could not be acquired and the respondent authorities were under obligation to change the lay out plan to save the lands of the petitioners from acquisition. On 09.11.1990, the following order was passed by this Court: “Notice of motion for 21st December, 1990. Dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed till further orders.” However, despite many opportunities, no reply was filed by the respondents. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 13.05.1991. It is also relevant to point out, at this stage, that during the course of hearing on 22.03.2011, in view of the arguments raised before this Court, the following order was passed: “Shri Sehgal is directed to get information as to whether change in road alignment, as earlier contemplated by letters Annexures P1 and P6, was ever noted when land was acquired in this case for construction of road. Shri Sehgal is further directed to get information as to whether the slight change in the road alignment can save plots of the petitioners. It be also indicated whether entire land, earlier released for teachers' colony, was made subject matter of acquisition or land owned by the petitioners. Shri Civil Writ Petition No.14393 of 1990 4 Sehgal shall also get information by making reference of the site plan Annexure P3 as to whether other landowners whose land has not been acquired had raised construction there or not. List on 31.03.2011.” In response to the aforesaid order, the Director General, Urban Estate Department, Haryana, vide his memo No.A-2/2011/3584 dated 15.04.2011 supplied the information as under: Sr.No. Information sought by the Hon'ble High Court Reply 1 Whether the land of the petitioner which is being acquired falls in the road alignment? A major part of the land of petitioner falls within the alignment of 30 mtrs wide sector road, as per the approved layout plan of sector 19 and 20, Kaithal. 2 Whether there is any proposal to change road alignment? There is no proposal to change road alignment. A major portion of the 9K-12M released land of Teacher's society(except the land of petitioner) is already outside the road alignment. Sector-19, Kaithal, in which the land of the petitioner falls, stands already developed. Therefore, it shall not be possible at this stage to change the road alignment. 3 Whether there is any possibility of change of road alignment in view of annexure P-1 and P-6? As per approved layout plan of sector 19 and 20, Kaithal, most of the land in question comes under the 30 mtrs wide existing outer sector road. This road falls on outer boundary of acquired land of sector- 19 and is the only access from Kaithal-Karnal road to sector-19 which is a fully developed sector. The existing Judicial Complex Kaithal and Mini-Secretariat, Kaithal also have second access from this road. This road also connects the Kaithal-Kurukshetra road to Kaithal- Karnal road. Therefore, this road is very essential and in view of existing developments, it is not possible at this stage to shift/change the alignment of this road. Civil Writ Petition No.14393 of 1990 5 Sr.No. Information sought by the Hon'ble High Court Reply 4 Whether the entire land belonging to Teacher's colony is being acquired? Entire land of Teacher's colony is not being acquired. 5 Whether the remaining land which is not being acquired has been utilized by the remaining teachers and if yes, whether they have paid EDC/IDC charges. No EDC/IDC charges have been deposited. 6 Whether the other teachers have raised construction on their plots after taking requisite permission? It has been informed by the Estate Officer,HUDA Kaithal, that some constructions have been raised on the remaining land of Teachers colony(outside the land involved in present petition). A few photographs have also been sent by E.O.HUDA, Kaithal. However, the exact number of such constructions is yet to be clarified by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal. E.O.Kaithal has further informed that no approval for construction has been taken from his office or the M.C.Kaithal. A photocopy of memo No.1, dated 15.04.2011 from Executive Officer, M.C.Kaithal is enclosed. From the perusal of the aforesaid information submitted by the respondents, it is crystal clear that a major part of the land of the petitioners falls within the alignment of 30 mtrs.wide sector road as per the approved lay out plan of Sector 19 and 20, Kaithal and there was no proposal to change the road alignment as a major part of the land of teachers colony is already outside the roadside alignment, stands already developed and therefore it shall not be possible, at this stage, to change the road alignment. Moreover, the 30 mtrs.wide sector road is the only access from Kaithal-Karnal road to Sector 19 which is fully developed sector and this road also serve as second access to the existing judicial complex Kaithal and Mini Secretariat Kaithal. The road also connects the Kaithal-Kurukshetra road to Kaithal-Karnal road and, therefore, is very essential and in view of the existing developments, it is not possible, at this Civil Writ Petition No.14393 of 1990 6 stage to shift/change the alignment of this road. Faced with the aforesaid factual situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents in releasing the land of other teachers, as mentioned above, and acquiring the lands of the petitioners, which is similarly situated, amounts to hostile discrimination and smacks mala fide and therefore the acquisition proceedings are liable to be set aside. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon a judgement of this Court in Roshan Lal & Ors.vs.State of Haryana & Ors.2003(3)PLR 199 to contend that once the land was released from acquisition, the same cannot be subsequently acquired for that purpose, particularly, when there was no change in any circumstances and the purpose for which it was proposed to be acquired. It is the further case of the petitioners that as per the agreement, the respondents were bound to release the lands of the petitioners by changing the alignment of the road of the sector road. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and has submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners have been met out with the hostile discrimination. Mr.Sehgal has forcefully argued that the plots of the petitioners were lying vacant and the same fall within the alignment of 30 mtrs.wide sector roads which was very essential and therefore the acquisition of the plots of the petitioners was fully justified and there was no question of any hostile discrimination and mala fide against the petitioners. In the end, Mr.Sehgal has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents placed on record of this case. As per the facts established on record, land measuring 9K-12M belonging Civil Writ Petition No.14393 of 1990 7 to the petitioners and other teachers was notified for acquisition by the respondents issued under Section 4 of the Act in the year 1984 and the Government had agreed to release the same from acquisition vide Annexure P-1 and P-4. However, vide Annexure P-6, the District Town Planner, Kurukshetra had made clear to the petitioners that their land was not made subject matter of Section 6 notification issued on 23.08.1986 and therefore their area was automatically released and their land was not acquired. It is also a matter of record that vide impugned notifications Annexure P-5 and P-8 the plots of the petitioners were acquired for a public purpose namely 'for the development and utilisation of land as residential, commercial and industrial area for Sector 19 Part-III.' Again, there is no dispute that the land of the petitioners falls within the alignment of 30 mtrs.wide sector road as per the approved lay out plan of Sector 19 and 20 Kaithal and the said road is very essential and keeping in view the existing developments it is not possible to change the alignment of this road. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents were bound by their agreement dated 01.10.1984, whereby they had agreed to release the land of the teachers' colony and the respondents are bound by the same and their land cannot be acquired by a subsequent notification, is without any merit. There is nothing on record to show that Government had bound itself forever not to acquire the land of the petitioners. Neither petitioners were able to show that they further got the site plans ect.sanctioned from the authorities in furtherance of the agreement. Rather, the plots of the petitioners are still lying vacant. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no change in any circumstances and the purpose for which it is proposed to be acquired cannot be accepted as the same has remained unsubstantiated. The earlier notifications acquiring the land of the petitioners have not been placed on record of the case. Even in the Civil Writ Petition No.14393 of 1990 8 pleadings, the petitioners are silent about the public purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired by the earlier notification. Moreover, in view of the stand taken by the respondents the land of the petitioners falls in the sector road and the alignment of the said road cannot be changed and thus the same cannot be released from the acquisition. In these circumstances, in our view, the judgement of this Court cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Roshan Lal & Ors.(supra) is of no help to him. The other argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been subjected to hostile discrimination as plots belonging to other teachers as shown at Sr.No.1 to 7 and 11 to 15 in the site plan Annexure P-3 have not been acquired, whereas their plots have been acquired, is again without any force. As per the stand taken by the respondents, the plots of the petitioners fall within the alignment of 30 mtrs.wide road, whereas the plots of other teachers which have not been acquired, fall outside the aforesaid alignment of the road and have been adjusted. Thus, the petitioners cannot be allowed to say that they have been subjected to hostile discrimination as respondents are justified in acquiring the plots of the petitioners as the road alignment cannot be changed in view of the existing development. In view of the aforesaid facts, it cannot also be said that the action of the respondents is mala fide. No other point was argued. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this writ petition. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE 19.04.2011 neenu