IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 11642 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: November 21, 2008 Ramphal and another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 5. Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 11642 and 11643 of 2007, which involve common questions of law. The facts are being referred from C.W.P. No. 11642 of 2007. The petitioners have prayed for quashing order dated 6.5.2006 (P-8), passed by the Director, Town C.W.P. No. 11642 of 2007 and Country Planning-cum-Urban Estate Department, Haryana- respondent No. 5. The Director has rejected the representation of the petitioners which was made in pursuance to the direction issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in its order dated 10.1.2006. A further prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the land belonging to the petitioners from acquisition comprised in Rectangle No. 38, Killa No. 11, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26 & Rectangle No. 58, Killa No. 2, 9, 11, 12, measuring 1 Kanal 2 Sarsai, situated at village Kheri Nangal, Tehsil and District Panipat, has also been made on the ground that they are already running their industrial unit in building with ‘A’ Class construction over the land since the year 2000 and have also provided accommodation for their workers in the labour quarters, prior to the issuance of notification dated 12.9.2001, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). 2. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.P. No. 14199 of 2002, which was dismissed vide order dated 5.9.2002 (P-6) by passing the following order:- “ Challenge herein is to notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 12.9.2001 and 1.3.2002 respectively. Al that has been averred in the present petition and on which basis alone, learned counsel representing the petitioners, urges before us is that objections under Section 5-A of the said Act were filed and the Land Acquisition 2 C.W.P. No. 11642 of 2007 Collector had made favourable recommendations. However, favourable recommendations, stated to have been made by the Land Acquisition Collector, have not been placed on records. Further, as per showing of the petitioners themselves, only an office has been made in the land in question. It is, thus, also not a case where the Government could have left this land under the policy of not acquiring constructed areas. No merits. Dismissed.” 3. The matter was agitated before Hon’ble the Supreme Court challenging decision of this Court rendered in C.W.P. No. 5670 of 2002, decided on 2.4.2002, alongwith a large number of other petitions. Hon’ble the Supreme Court noticed that during the pendency of the proceedings before it decision was taken by the State Government on 5.11.2002 to release from acquisition those industrial units which were functional at site, subject to various conditions like payment of entire amount of external/internal development charges, agreement for exchange of land with HUDA, further subject to grant of permission for Change of Land Use (CLU) to be decided on merit by the Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, the structure was to be used only for running industry and that the land coming under high tension line of electricity was to be kept as non buildable zone by the industries. However, a number of applications for release of land were rejected by the Government, who submitted before Hon’ble the Supreme Court that 3 C.W.P. No. 11642 of 2007 if the application for release of acquired land in their cases was rejected on the ground that they did not obtain permission for CLU then they be granted another chance to make a representation to the Government for challenging the order of rejection. It was clarified that mere grant of permission to them to challenge the order was not to be construed that rejection of permission was not legal and valid as Hon’ble the Supreme Court did not examine the order rejecting the prayer for permission for CLU. Accordingly, liberty was granted to consider all relevant facts in accordance with the Government policy and to dispose of the representation, which was to be confined to the dying industries which existed and functional on the date on which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published. 4. The petitioners feeling inspired by the observation made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court filed a detailed representation on 3.2.2006 before the Director-respondent No. 5, who has rejected the same vide impugned order dated6.5.2006 (P-8). The representation made by the petitioners has been rejected by observing that the petitioners earlier applied for composition of unauthorized construction and permission of CLU on 12.4.2002 and after examination of their case on merits, the request was refused on 19.4.2004. 5. The Director-respondent No. 5 further observed that the application for permission of CLU was submitted on 12.4.2002 after the announcement of award on 11.4.2002 and taking over of possession. He also observed that notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act were issued on 12.9.2001 and 17.12.2001 4 C.W.P. No. 11642 of 2007 respectively. Therefore, he concluded that the petitioners had lost title to the land for issuance of CLU as the land had vest in the State free from all encumbrances. He further opined that Rule 26-A(2) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Rules, 1965, required the applicant to provide copy of the title deed proving his ownership, which he could not have done. 6. The Director-respondent No. 5 further observed that in any case a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional Director, Urban Estate, was constituted, who submitted its report on 24.12.2005, which disclosed that on the land of the petitioners only labour quarters/shops existed and as per the comments of the Chief Town Planner, HUDA, obtained on the file on 6.3.2006, it was again reported that only labour quarters/shops were in existence at the site. Therefore, it was not possible to accommodate the land belonging to the petitioners in the approved lay out plan. The concluding para of the order passed by the Director-respondent No. 5 sums up all the reasons for declining the request for grant of CLU, which reads thus:- “1. The land has already been acquired by Department of Urban Estate Haryana and the applicants have no title for this land. 2. The site falls in industrial zone as per the proposals of draft development plan of Panipat. Shops/Commercial use is not permissible in the 5 C.W.P. No. 11642 of 2007 industrial Zone as per the zoning regulations of the draft development plan. 3. The construction violates Section-7 of The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. 4. That there is violation of Section-7(i) and (ii) of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. 5. The land was purchased after material date i.e. after 10.9.71. 6. It is not feasible for Haryana Urban Development Authority to adjust the existing structure without affecting the approved layout plan of Sector-29 Panipat, because the said land affects two plots bearing number 647 & 648 of 1000 square meter category in the layout plan of Sector-29(II) Panipat. 7. That the land is not being used for running an industry but only for labour quarters and shops.” 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and find that these petitions lack merit and, thus, are liable to be dismissed. The acquisition proceedings in the instant case were initiated on 12.9.2001 when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. After consideration of objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act by the land owners, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 17.12.2001. Thereafter the award was announced on 11.4.2002 6 C.W.P. No. 11642 of 2007 and possession of the land in question was taken. The reasons given by the Director-respondent No. 5 in the impugned order dated 6.5.2006 (P-8) are sound and consistent with law. Moreover, we find that firstly the petitioners have lost in the earlier writ petition filed by them and findings have been recorded by this Court that there was only an office in the land in question and the land could not have been released under the policy of not acquiring the constructed areas. The aforementioned fact is clear from the perusal of order dated 5.9.2002, passed by this Court while dismissing C.W.P. No. 14199 of 2002 (P-6), which has been reproduced above. The efforts of the petitioners to prove the existence of dying industry at the site is farce because before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, there was only one office in the land in question. Therefore, the writ petition is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, these petitions fail and the same are dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) November 21, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 7