CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9888 OF 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 21, 2011. Parties Name Sant Singh ...PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. Alok Jain, Adv., for Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No. 9718 of 2010. Ms. Palika Monga, D.A.G., Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This order will dispose of two writ petitions, i.e., Civil Writ Petitions No. 9888 of 2010 and 9718 of 2009, involving similar questions of facts and law. For facility of dictating judgment, facts are being taken from CWP No. 9888 of 2010. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (In CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9888 OF 2010(O&M) -2- short the Act) on April 5, 2008, proposing to acquire 303 Acres of land, situated in three villages including land measuring 155 .37 Acres , falling in revenue estate of village Hisar, district Hisar. The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for development of commercial area - Sector 25, Hisar. Further challenge is to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on February 3, 2009, showing intention of the respondents to acquire land measuring 280.44 Acres. Petitioner is owner of 45 Kanals and 17 Marlas of land, whereon as per admitted facts on record, he has raised construction of a banquet hall. The extent of the construction was noted by the authorities concerned, which is reflected in the written-statement, filed by respondent No. 5, which reads thus: “That in reply to para No. 2 of the Civil Writ Petition, it is submitted that the petitioner has built up a Banquet Hall/ Marriage Palace consisting of 120' x 60' Hall with 'A' class construction, 20' x 17' Porch with 'A' class construction, 21' x 21' Dargah Peer Baba, 31' x 32' Burring Room Hut, 40' x 32' Dressing Room 'A' class construction, 8' x 8' Generator Room 'C' class construction, 20' x 28' Office Room 'A' class construction, 8' x 7' Guard Room 'B' class construction and entire 23 Kanals 17 Marlas land has been surrounded with a Boundary Wall of 10' height with iron grills. It is further submitted that the Banquet Hall/ Marriage Palace are one and the same thing constructed on a portion of the above mentioned land measuring 23 Kanals 17 Marlas and the car parking area is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9888 OF 2010(O&M) -3- included in the above mentioned land within the Boundary Wall.” It is an admitted fact that the land measuring 23 Kanals and 17 Marlas was released in favour of the petitioner on account of the above said construction . Total construction, as per detail given above, may be in 2 to 3 Kanals of land only, whereas land was released to the extent of about 24 Kanals. Thereafter, the petitioner started making representations with a prayer that rest of the land, measuring 22 Kanals be also released as the same is needed for parking purposes. To say so, it was alleged that some construction also existed in that land. It was noted by the authorities that only a few tin sheds are in existence. It was further observed that the said land is not needed to run the banquet hall, as stated by the petitioner, and accordingly representation was dismissed vide order dated December 15, 2009. Though above said order has been mentioned in this writ petition, however, yet there is no prayer to quash the same. At the time of arguments, Shri Alok Jain has vehemently contended that the acquisition of land of the petitioner was a colourable exercise of power. It is his case that a vast track of land is lying vacant and unless and until that land is utilised for public purpose, further acquisition is not justified. No such averment has been made in the writ petition. It is nowhere stated as to where the land is lying vacant and what is the extent of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9888 OF 2010(O&M) -4- that land and for what purpose and when it was acquired. The argument was raised without giving any facts in that regard. To support the above said contention, reference was made to paragraph No. 13 of the writ petition, which reads thus: “13. That Petitioner submits that the consideration at the time of hearing under Section 5-A and reconsideration at various stages stands vitiated and lacks proper application of mind and therefore is bad in law.” We cannot accept contention raised by Shri Jain because unless and until facts are mentioned in the writ petition, no finding can be given in that regard. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the land under acquisition, measuring about 22 Kanals is needed for parking area to run the Banquet Hall. We are not convinced with the submission. The land is virtually lying vacant except existence of small temporary tin sheds. It is not in dispute that the land measuring more than 23 Kanals was released from acquisition. The actual construction of the Banquet Hall may be on 2 to 3 Kanals of land, as per specification given by the respondents in their written-statement. If that is so, sufficient area is available which can be used for parking purposes and to develop other facilities. Otherwise also, it has come on record that the Banquet Hall was constructed in utter violation of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (in short the Act). The land falls within the notified controlled area. Before CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9888 OF 2010(O&M) -5- raising construction, no permission was sought from the competent authority. The petitioner is a very daring person. Even after issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act and having got about 23 Kanals of land released, on rest of the land he started raising construction, which was objected to by the authorities. Accordingly, notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued against him and against that action, he has filed an appeal, which is still pending. Such like individual is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. Even the land released earlier appears to be unjustified because the construction was raised in violation to the law. The law breakers are not entitled to get any relief from this Court. So far as CWP No.9718 of 2009 is concerned, this has been filed by a Society, which owns about 22 Acres of land. It is not in dispute that there was a long drawn litigation between the petitioner and the district administration, which ultimately went in favour of the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that at the spot, there are only 3 to 4 houses in existence. On September 20, 2010, taking note of the facts, alleged by the petitioner, following order was passed by this Court : “ We have gone through the site plan and other documents put on record and are convinced that the Society is going to construct houses in a planned manner. Some houses stood constructed in the area in question. Respondents have declined to release this area from acquisition only on the ground that the area is earmarked for commercial activities. Be that as it may, if colony, which is under litigation with the Administration for the last two decades, its land can be adjusted, the petitioners have no objection to pay development charges or any other CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9888 OF 2010(O&M) -6- charges, as may be required. The State counsel seeks time to get instructions as to whether the entire land of the Society or the constructed area can be left out from acquisition. On request adjourned to 29.11.2010. A copy of the order be given dasti to the State counsel under signature of Court Secretary of the Bench.” In response thereto, following communication was received from the office of Additional Director, Urban Estate Department, Haryana, Panchkula: “From Additional Director, Urban Estates Department, Haryana, Panchkula. To The Advocate General, Chandigarh. Memo No. 10152 dated 29.11.10. Subject: CWP No. 9718 of 2010- Vivek Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. The report in the above noted case was obtained from CA, HUDA and as per report the land of the society falls in sector 25 (commercial) which is being acquired for development of commercial sector and it will affect one five star hotel, one Guest House, one site for Museum/ Art Gallary/ Library, 17 Shopping Booths, 9 Hotel Bays, 19 SCOs Parking green Belt, 24 mt & 30 mt. wide road etc. No residential CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9888 OF 2010(O&M) -7- activities can be undertaken in this area as per zoning regulations. The detail report received from Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula attached herewith. In view of the report, the land of the society may not be released.” It is an admitted fact that the land is going to be acquired to set up a commercial sector. Construction in 24 Acres of land, owned by the Society, is very less. As is apparent from the communication now received, if land of the petitioner is kept out of acquisition, it will create hurdle in development of the commercial area in Sector 25, Hisar. So far as contention of Mr. Sharma that development of infrastrcture etc. already stood executed and the Society had deposited a huge amount with the Municipal Committee towards development charges, the Society may take up the matter for refund of that amount or the Land Acquisition Collector may take care of the same while passing an award. At this stage, it is not possible for us to interfere at the instance of the petitioners. No further argument was raised. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge February 21 , 2011. DKC