CWP No. 715 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 715 of 1986 Date of decision: 07.09.2010 Shanti Devi wife of Siri Ram and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, for Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the acquisition proceedings, which were initiated by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 21.06.1983. Further challenge is to the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 24.04.1985. Notice issued under Section 9 of the Act asking the petitioners to appear in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon on 18.09.1985 for determination of compensation amount, has CWP No. 715 of 1986 2 also been impugned in this writ petition. It appears from the records that when for the first time the writ petition was taken up for hearing by this Court on 13.02.1986, it was adjourned to 08.04.1986 by passing the following order:- “ Notice of motion for April 8, 1986. Dispossession stayed meanwhile.” After receipt of reply, the writ petition was admitted and further proceedings in the acquisition matter were stayed on 07.07.1986. During the course of hearing on 23.05.2007, following order was passed by this Court:- “ The case has been fixed for re-hearing. On a perusal of the file, I find that certain clarifications are required from the respondent/State. The respondent would make a clear statement as to whether the land that was subject matter of acquisition is still required for the purpose for which it has been acquired and particularly in view of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that more than six hundred acres of Gram Panchayat land is now available. Even the document (Annexure P5) on the record reflects that the Gram Panchayat land could be utilized for the said purpose. Adjourned to 11.7.2007.” Thereafter on 09.01.2008, following order was passed by this Court:- “ Counsel for the State of Haryana submits, on the basis of a letter received from the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land CWP No. 715 of 1986 3 Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, that the disputed land has been divided into plots and allotted. However, the question posed to counsel for the State of Haryana, in the order dated 23.5.2007 was, whether the land is required for the public purpose, for which it was acquired, as 600 Acres of Gram Panchayat land is stated to be available. Counsel for the State submits that this question is answered in the reply, by asserting therein that the land belonging to the Gram Panchayat is not suitable for carving out plots. At the request of counsel for the petitioners, adjourned to 26.2.2008.” The matter came up for hearing before us on 12.08.2010. The State of Haryana was directed to file an affidavit as to whether in the situation existing at present, it is necessary to acquire the land or not. The above-said observation was made taking note of a policy decision of the State of Haryana framed in the year 2007 proposing to allot plots to the weaker sections of the society out of the Gram Panchayat land. In response to order passed by us, an affidavit has been filed. In para Nos.2 and 3 of the said affidavit, it has been stated as under:- “2. That in this regard, it is respectfully submitted that information regarding the status of the land in dispute was sought from Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon. The Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon vide his letter bearing No. 2095/S.K. Dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure R-I) has informed that the land of the petitioners stands already acquired and after sanctioning of CWP No. 715 of 1986 4 the mutation of the land in favour of the State Government, the mutation of the same has been sanctioned after allotment in favour of eligible landless persons of Scheduled Caste, Backward Class and Economically weaker section. The possession of the land has also been transferred in favour of the eligible allottees. The State Government is now not in ownership of the above said notified land and the petitioners now has no concern with the said land. 3. That in view of the information as furnished by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon the land in dispute in the present case stands already utilized. It is also pertinent to mention here that the available Gram Panchayat land of village Bhondsi is hilly and uneven. The same is full of forests and deep ravines. Therefore, the above said Gram Panchayat land is not fit for residential purposes. The report of Sub- Divisional Officer (C)-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon in this regard is annexed herewith as Annexure R-II. It is an admitted fact that the Award was passed on 20.09.1985. This writ petition admittedly was filed after passing of the Award. In view of the ratio of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698 and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. CWP No. 715 of 1986 5 State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280, possibly this writ petition cannot be entertained. Be that as it may, in the affidavit, it has been specifically stated that after declaration of Award, possession of the land was taken from the land owners and it was divided into plots, which were allotted to the members of the weaker sections of the society, who had constructed their houses in the land under acquisition. It is further stated in the affidavit that Gram Panchayat's land was not fit for the purpose, for which land was acquired vide the impugned notifications. In view of facts mentioned above, we feel that no case is made out for interference by this Court. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE September 07, 2010 pj CWP No. 715 of 1986 6