IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13380 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 6.1.2011 Bir Pal Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana Mr.Naresh Parbhakar, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 29 Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition is a classic example of the manner in which by misusing the judicial forums, a poor person can be deprived of his right. Land of the petitioner’s father Hukam Singh was acquired way back, by issuing a notification in the year 1991, regarding which award was passed on 31.1.1984 and mutation in favour of the State was sanctioned on 4.11.1985. As per records, thereafter under a Scheme of the Government, to rehabilitate the poor persons, 100 square yard plots were carved out in the land, in dispute and allotted to as many as 27 persons, who are out of possession despite allotment in their favour made more than 30 years ago. This case has a chequered history. It is an admitted fact that when land was acquired, Hukam Singh, father of the petitioner was Civil Writ Petition No.13380 of 2009(O&M) alive. He did not lay challenge to the same. After his death, the petitioner filed CWP No.11484 of 2003, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2008, holding that the petitioner is sitting on the land unauthorisedly. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “It is not possible for us to accept that the land in question should be treated as continuing to vest in the petitioner, merely on account of continuous unauthorized possession and alleged construction on the land. Hukam Singh was admittedly the owner of the land in question (out of whom the petitioner claims to have inherited his rights). Hukam Singh was aware of the notification issued by the State Government to acquire land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hukam Singh first raised objections under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contesting the very proposal of the State Government to acquire the land. Hukam Singh again raised objections under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the time when possession thereof was sought to be taken by the State Government. It is therefore not possible for us to accept that Hukam Singh was not aware of the acquisition proceedings consequent upon which the land in question was acquired. On the culmination of acquisition proceedings, the land came to be transferred in the name of the State Government by mutation bearing No.561 dated 4.11.1985. We find no justification whatsoever at the hands of the petitioner to assail the same. The mere fact that the petitioner raised construction over the land in question after being fully aware that the same had already been acquired 2 Civil Writ Petition No.13380 of 2009(O&M) does not create any equitable right in the petitioner. The petitioner did what he could not have done he must therefore suffer the consequences thereof. Accordingly, the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is hereby declined.” It appears that the petitioner assailed that order in the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on 20.7.2009, in SLP No.13386 of 2009, following order was passed:- “We find no ground to entertain the special leave petition. The petitioner claims that though the land was acquired in the year 1979-80 and the land is mutated in the name of the respondent-State, he has constructed a house and continues to live there. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is willing to offer an alternative land to meet the purpose for which this land was acquired, to save his house. The appropriate course is to make such an offer to the respondents for their consideration” By taking a clue from the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner submitted a representation reiterating his stand that an equivalent land be accepted and he be allowed to retain the land which was acquired more than 30 years ago. Petitioner’s representation was dismissed by the Collector vide the impugned order. In that order, it is specifically stated that 100 square yards plots were carved out in the land, in dispute and allotted to 27 poor persons in whose favour sale deeds were executed and mutation has also been sanctioned. When the matter was pending before the Collector, an undertaking was given by one Satbir who appeared on behalf 3 Civil Writ Petition No.13380 of 2009(O&M) of the land owners that if through negotiation with the allottees, the matter is not settled and the allottees are not ready to accept the alternative plots, then land owners shall vacate the land. However, negotiation failed. Even thereafter, land was not vacated. Forced with the situation, the Collector passed the impugned order on 3.8.2009. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “After hearing both the parties and perusing the documents on record and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and High Court of Haryana, I have reached at the conclusion that under 20-Point programme Haryana State by acquiring land had given 3 marlas plot each to the above said persons. Sale deeds and mutation of the land allotted out of land acquired land have since been sanctioned in the names of the allottees and the remaining land is recorded in the name of Haryana State in the revenue record. But the old owners till today have given on rent the rooms constructed by them on the allotted land as well as on the remaining land and have made illegal possession on the land. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Gurgaon is directed to register a case of Trespassers against the persons in possession namely Rattan Singh, Tejpal etc. sons of Nathu son of Devi Sahai and Satbir, Inderpal, Birpal sons of Hukam Singh son of Devi Sahai residents of Mohamadpur Jharsa and propose to recover the rent of these rooms and should recover the amount from the year 1988 till date and get the land allotted to the allottees and government vacated from the persons in possession and possession may be delivered to the allottees.” 4 Civil Writ Petition No.13380 of 2009(O&M) Hence, this writ petition. Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate has vehemently contended that the impugned order was not passed in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and further that it was not open to the Collector to order recovery of the amount and further to direct registration of an FIR against the petitioner. We feel that the argument raised is fallacious and misconceived. In reply filed, it is specifically stated and there is no proof on record that any construction was in existence when notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire the land was issued way back in the year 1981. Hukam Singh, father of the petitioner continued to fight litigation, opposing acquisition of his land but failed, remained satisfied and did not challenge the same. It appears that in the meantime, unauthorized construction was raised by the petitioner. It was so held by a Division Bench of this Court when dismissing CWP No.11484 of 2003 on 16.12.2008, filed by the petitioner. The petitioner went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court where a very innocuous order was passed. His representation was considered in terms of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it was found as a matter of fact that residential house of the petitioner does not exist in the land in dispute, rather small rooms have been constructed unauthorisedly and are given on rent. To negative above said finding, nothing is available on record. In the reply filed, it is also so stated by the respondents. By filing a replication, the averments made therein are not rebutted. We feel that despite acquisition of his land, the petitioner has entangled the State and the poor persons in litigation, without any justification. Once, award has become final and father of the petitioner has 5 Civil Writ Petition No.13380 of 2009(O&M) not laid challenge to the acquisition in question, it was not open to the petitioner to assail the same. His claim was rightly rejected by this Court way back in the year 2008. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the land for the last more than 30 years. If that is so, we feel that the order passed by the Collector, to recover use and occupation charges from him, is perfectly justified. We feel that the Collector is competent to pass such an order. If any relief is given to the petitioner at this stage, it would amount to giving undeserved benefit to a person, who has no respect for the law and is an unauthorised occupant, such a leverage cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. This writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-, to be deposited with the Secretary, Legal Services Committee, Punjab and Haryana High Court, failing which, the Secretary may initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 06.01.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 6