IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.20005 of 2006 Date of decision: 5.5.2009 Subhash Goyal. -----Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. A.C. Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Haryana for the State. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for respondent No.3/HUDA. Mr. P.K. Dutt, Advocate for respondent No.4/Railways. ----- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.: 1. This petition seeks quashing of notifications dated 21.7.2006, 14.11.2006 and 20.8.2007, Annexures P-13, P-15 and P-18 respectively. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he alongwith other partners had established an industrial unit in District Rewari on about 7 Kanal of land. Notification dated 21.7.2006 was issued for acquisition of land for residential/commercial purposes in Sectors 6 and 7 of C.W.P. No.20005 of 2006 District Rewari. On filing of objections by the petitioner, acquisition was not proceeded with. Thereafter, a fresh notification dated 14.11.2006 was issued, proposing to acquire land for outer ring road Green Belt. Thereafter, notification dated 20.8.2007 was issued, proposing to acquire the land for Railway line. Subsequently, vide notification dated 28.4.2009, land of the petitioner has been excluded from acquisition for Railway. Thus, only notification dated 14.11.2006 and further proceedings thereon survive. 3. Contention raised in the petition is that invocation of urgency clause was not called for as no survey was done about requirement of Railways, the acquisition being for outer ring road Green Belt. The land was now proposed to be given to the Railways. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of the Railways, it has been stated that survey was earlier conducted, but due to financial constraints, the project could not be taken up for acquisition and now in view of availability of budget, the project was proposed to be completed, for which, a sum of Rs.160 crores has already been spent and earth work on the entire length of about 75 kilometers has been completed. 5. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, it has been stated that land was required for development of outer ring road and Green Belt of both sides of Pataudi Road to Jhajjar Road. 6. As regards notification dated 20.8.2007, proposing to acquire land for the Railways, reply dated 16.4.2009 has been filed 2 C.W.P. No.20005 of 2006 by the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, Chandigarh, stating that award dated 29.3.2007 has already been announced in pursuance of notification dated 14.11.2006, which covers the land of the petitioner. Since the land already stood acquired, the same has now been excluded from notification dated 20.8.2007. Though the land was acquired initially for outer ring road Green Belt, the said land will be got transferred for utilization of Rohtak-Rewari Railway line. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no justification for invoking of urgency clause. In the notification dated 14.11.2006, the project of Railways did not find mention. Land of the petitioner was included in notification dated 20.8.2007, which shows that till then requirement for Railways had not materialized. Reliance has been placed on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Essco Fabs Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of Haryana & another JT 2008(12) SC 315, to submit that hearing of objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was the normal rule and invoking of urgency clause could be in exceptional circumstances for unforeseen emergency. Even in such cases, dispensing with the requirement of Section 5A of the Act was not automatic. If the petitioner was given opportunity to raise objections, the petitioner would have pointed out that there was other vacant land available and that the acquisition could be in such a way as not to affect the running factory of the petitioner. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of the Karnataka High Court in 3 C.W.P. No.20005 of 2006 Gadigeppa Mahadevappa Chikkumbi v. State of Karnataka and others AIR 1990 Karnataka 2, holding that where by acquisition, an agriculturist was deprived of his sole means of livelihood and was rendered landless, such acquisition would be violative of Articles 21 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 9. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the land was acquired for development by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, which had an oustee policy for rehabilitation and under that said policy, the petitioner could seek rehabilitation. 10. Learned counsel for the Railways submitted that the Railway project will serve larger needs of the society and though there is long lapse of time since issuance of notification dated 14.11.2006, there should not be any further delay and exercise of power for invoking urgency clause had to be seen, having regard to the purpose for which acquisition proceedings were initiated. Little change in alignment for leaving out land of petitioner may affect the project in a big way. 11. While having regard to the object for which the land is proposed to be acquired, we are not inclined to interfere with the acquisition, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be heard in the matter. 12. We, accordingly, direct Secretary, Urban Estate Department, Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh to give hearing to the petitioner on 12.5.2009 at 11-00 A.M. 4 C.W.P. No.20005 of 2006 13. Subject to such order as may be passed after hearing the petitioner, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with the matter. 14. The petition is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE May 05, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 5