In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 19532 of 2006 Date of Decision: January 13, 2009 Sudesh Madan …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing lay out plan of Sector 15, Phase-I, Jagadhri (Annexure P-9), prepared by the Department of District Town and Country Planning, Jagadhri- respondent No. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that though in the notification dated 2.5.2001 (P-7) issued under Section 4 and declaration dated 30.4.2002 (P-8) issued under Section 6 of the Land CWP No. 19532 of 2006 Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) the land belonging to her was not included but the respondents have included her land in the lay out plan for Sector 15, Phase-I, Jagadhri, erroneously. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner purchased 2 Bighas 15 Biswas of land, comprised in Khasra No. 445 and land measuring 14 Biswas comprising in Khasra No. 447, situated in village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, vide two registered sale deeds dated 9.4.1982 and 16.5.1984. On 21.4.1987, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for acquiring 250.54 acres of land falling under the revenue estates of village Garhi Mundon (Hadbast No. 408) and Tejli (Hadbast No. 409), Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala (now in District Yamunanagar) for the public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of land as residential area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (P-1). Subsequently, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 2.4.1988 and award was announced in respect of 117.68 acres of land on 17.4.1990. The aforementioned land purchased by the husband of the petitioner was also included in the notification and stood acquired. 3. Some of the land owners challenged notification dated 21.4.1987 and declaration dated 2.4.1988 by filing various writ petitions in this Court including C.W.P. No. 3269 of 1990 (Sukhdev Sharma and others v. State of Haryana. In all 22 writ petitions are stated to have been filed. The bunch of aforementioned writ petitions was allowed by the learned Single Judge by quashing the declaration under Section 6 (P-2), vide judgment and order dated 29.9.1992 (P-3). 2 CWP No. 19532 of 2006 After quashing of declaration under Section 6, the respondent State did not take any step for acquiring the land. In the year 1995, the husband of the petitioner also challenged notification and declaration dated 21.4.1987 and 20.4.1988 (P-1 & P-2 respectively) by filing C.W.P. No. 6651 of 1995, which was disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Sukhdev Sharma’s case (supra), vide order dated 4.9.1997 (P-4). 4. It is also pertinent to notice here that before passing the judgment dated 29.9.1992, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 17.4.1990, in respect of land measuring 117.68 acres. A number of references under Section 18 of the Act were preferred by the land owners including the husband of the petitioner and the learned Additional District Judge also enhanced the compensation vide order dated 18.11.1991. In para No. 11 of the petition, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that her husband did not receive any compensation in terms of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector under Section 18 of the Act. However, the assertion made by the petitioner has been emphatically controvered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement and in para 2 of the preliminary objections it has been stated that the amount of compensation as well as enhanced amount of compensation were received by the petitioner and her husband on 3.3.1992 and 2.5.1990 respectively. The stand taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has not been rebutted by filing any replication. 5. The petitioner or her husband did not take any action on the basis of order dated 4.9.1997 (P-4) passed in CWP No. 6651 of 3 CWP No. 19532 of 2006 1995 for about 16 years from the announcement of award dated 17.4.1990 for depositing back the amount of compensation received by them. It has been asserted that the Collector had issued letters to several persons intimating them that the amount of compensation has to be deposited back and after doing the needful clearance certificates were also issued to such persons. In this regard, the petitioner has cited the names of 8 persons in para 12 of the petition. 6. Some of the land owners in whose cases the amount of compensation was not received back by the respondents, filed C.W.P. No. 1754 of 2001 in this Court for seeking direction to the respondents to allow them to deposit the money which was received by them as compensation of the acquired land. However, the Division Bench declined to interfere in the matter vide order dated 6.2.2001 (P-5). 7. Another writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 9242 of 1994 was filed by certain land owners with the grievance that despite quashing of declaration under Section 6 of the Act (P-2), the respondents were taking forcible possession of their land on the ground that order dated 29.9.1992 passed in CWP No. 3269 of 1990 would be applicable only in cases of those land owners who had approached this Court challenging the notifications. The aforementioned writ petition was dismissed on 15.7.1994 (P-6) with the following observation: “ In our considered opinion, the Writ Petition is based on misconceived apprehension. The order dated September 19, 1992 passed by this court unequivocally 4 CWP No. 19532 of 2006 struck down the notification under Section 6 of the Act with the striking down of the notification, the entire acquisition proceedings taken by the respondents on the basis of that notification stood nullified. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned counsel that on the basis of misinterpretation of the order of this court, the respondents may dispossess the petitioner. The respondents cannot dispossess the petitioner by taking the view that the judgment of the court was limited to the petitioners in that Writ Petition. If at all, the respondents want to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner and others, the only course open to them is to take fresh steps in accordance with the provisions of the Act. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed.” 8. On 2.5.2001, the respondent State of Haryana again issued another notification under Section 4 of the Act for development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area for Sector 15, Jagadhri (P-7). After hearing objections filed by the land owners under Section 5-A of the Act, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 30.4.2002 whereby 76.30 acres of land has been acquired (P-8). The petitioner has claimed that the land belonging to her comprised in Khasra Nos. 445 and 447 did not form part of the aforementioned notifications (P-7 & P-8). It has been further pointed out that amendments have been made in the lay out 5 CWP No. 19532 of 2006 plan bearing DRG No. DTP(4) 116/2000, dated 16.5.2000, which has been approved by the Chief Administrator, HUDA and conveyed by the Chief Town Planner, HUDA, vide Memo. No. 4533, dated 30.5.2002. The site plan has been placed on record as Annexure P-9. It has been claimed that the land belonging to the petitioner has also been included in the aforementioned lay out plan without there being any acquisition. It has been asserted by the petitioner that the respondents did not allow her to raise construction when she wanted to construct his house in the year 2005. In this regard, the petitioner also made a representation (P-10). 9. A conjoint reading of the separate written statements reveals that a Revised Draft Development Plan-2021 AD for Yamuna Nagar-Jagadhri was published on 9.12.2006 under Section 5 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (R-1). As per the development plan, Sector 15, Jagadhri has been earmarked for residential use. It has been asserted that in the year 2001 it was decided to re-acquire all the vacant pockets of the land which remained free from acquisition as a result of quashing of earlier acquisition proceedings by this Court vide order dated 29.9.1992 in CWP No. 3269 of 1990. Accordingly, notification dated 2.5.2001 under Section 4 of the Act was issued for acquiring 89.7 acres of land falling in the revenue estates of villages Tejli and Garhi Mundo. After deciding objections under Section 5-A, land measuring 4.88 acres has been released and declaration under Section 6 of the Act in respect of 84.82 acres of land has been issued on 30.4.2002. The petitioner and her husband have received the 6 CWP No. 19532 of 2006 amount of compensation as well as enhanced amount of compensation on 3.3.1992 and 2.5.1990 respectively. The present petition has been filed after a gap of 16 years from the announcement of award dated 17.4.1990, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It has been mentioned that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount of compensation back within a reasonable time. It has been claimed that the land owners who did not deposit the amount of compensation back that land was kept under acquisition and developed by the HUDA, which was already in its possession. It has been further asserted that quashing of declaration under Section 6 by judgment of this Court dated 29.9.1992 would not help the petitioner in view of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Abhey Ram (dead) by LR’s and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 2564. It has also been submitted that the HUDA has developed 92 acres of land falling in Sector 15 Part-I as per the law out plan by carving out 554 residential plots and commercial booth sites. Some allotments have also been made as per residential housing schemes. The land has been developed by providing basic amenities in the area such as water supply, sewerage, electricity, storm water drainage, parks etc., by incurring expenditure of Rs. 127 lacs on the development works. Third party rights have also accrued. Therefore, prayer has been made for dismissal of the writ petition. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we find that the claim made by the petitioner does not 7 CWP No. 19532 of 2006 deserve to be accepted. The facts of the present case suggest that despite the quashing of acquisition proceedings by this Court vide order dated 4.9.1997 (P-4) in terms of judgment passed in Sukhdev Sharam’s case (supra), the petitioner or her husband failed to avail the benefits flowing from same. The award was announced on 17.4.1990 and even the husband of the petitioner sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. Learned Additional District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector. The petitioner and her husband were required to deposit back the amount of compensation as well as enhanced amount of compensation within a reasonable period. It is undisputed that they did not take any steps in that regard. It is not a case where the respondents declined to offer the petitioner the acquired land. The petitioner has made a false claim that the amount of compensation was never received by her husband. However, the respondents State has specifically averred in para 2 of the preliminary objections that amount of compensation as well as enhanced amount of compensation were received by the petitioner and her husband on 3.3.1992 and 2.5.1990 respectively. The petitioner and her husband neither deposited back the amount nor invoked the jurisdiction of this Court complaining that the refund of compensation is not being accepted by the respondent State. In such a situation it would be safe to presume for the respondent State that the petitioner has accepted the compensation and has agreed for acquisition of her land. 11. The aforementioned conclusion is inevitable because it is on account of unexplained delay and laches on the part of the 8 CWP No. 19532 of 2006 petitioner that the land belonging to her has been developed by the HUDA and residential and commercial plots have been carved out. The specific stand of the respondents is that over the land in question the HUDA authorities have spent crores of rupees for the development of the land and at this stage it cannot be held that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered on 29.9.1992 (P-3). It has to be held that the petitioner has accepted the acquisition by accepting compensation as well as enhanced compensation despite the fact that opportunity was available to refund the same. But she and her husband failed to avail the aforesaid opportunity for 16 years. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner for restraining the respondents to proceed with the acquisition of the land and to include the same in the site plan of Sector 15, Part-I, Jagadhari, is wholly misconceived and is, thus, liable to be rejected. 12. As a sequel to the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) January 13, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 9