Case: Patasi Devi Vs. State Of Haryana

respondent No. 6 and the land of the petitioner is surrounded by the land of Sun City by three sides and cannot be choose for any purpose except to acquire the same and hand over it to the respondent No. 6 and the acquisition proceedings are not meant for public purpose in true sense and the authorities are bent upon to help the respondent No. 6 in an illegal and arbitrary manner.” In the counter affidavit filed by Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana, Rohtak on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3, it was claimed that the procedural requirement contained in Sections 4 and 6 of the Act had been fully satisfied and reference to Section 17(1) in the declaration issued under Section 6 was a mistake and further that no discrimination had been practised in acquiring the land. However, it was not denied that the appellants land is surrounded by the land of respondent No.6, who was developing residential colony under the name and style Sun City and earlier also the land acquired for the development of Sector 36, Rohtak was transferred to respondent No.6. This shows that in the guise of acquiring land for a public purpose, the State Government had acquired the land for being handed over to the private coloniser. In other words, the State Government had misused the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 of the Act for making land available to a private developer. We may hasten to add that if the land was to be acquired for a company, then the official respondents were bound to comply with the provisions contained in Chapter 7 of the Act, which was admittedly not done in the instant case. We also find merit in the appellants plea that the official respondents are guilty of practising discrimination in the matter of release of land. In paragraphs 6(v) and 6(vi) of the writ petition the appellant had made the following averments: “6(v) That the petitioner who is having only small piece of land/ residential house would be deprived of the roof and the construction made by the petitioner is of A Class and has been raised prior to the issuance of Notification u/s 4 of the Act i.e. 15.12.2006. Photographs showing construction of the House of A Class, is annexed herewith as Annexure P/5. As per the policy of the State Government dated 30.9.2007, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P/6, the structure which have been constructed prior to the issuance of the notification u/s 4 and is inhabited could be released u/s 48(1) of the Act ibid but the respondents have ignored its own instructions and for releasing the land the pick and choose policy has been adopted by the authorities and the land of M/s Sharad Farm and Holdings Pvt. Ltd. has also been released arbitrarily after notification u/s 6 of the Act as is reflected from letter dated 4.9.2008, copy of which is annexed as Annexure P/7 and furthermore the constructed house of the petitioner has been acquired but the vacant land of some influential person have been left out and the State Government is not justified in acquiring the land in question for further handing over the same to the private developers for commercial gains at the cost of the life/livelihood of the petitioner and the impugned notification has not been issued for a bonafide purpose and is a result of connivance of the authorities with the respondent No. 4 to 6 and it is not permissible under law. The release of land of the petitioner would not create any hurdle in the scheme of the respondents. 6(vi) That the construction of the house of the petitioner is prior to the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Collector in similar circumstances also recommended the release of the land and the same was not included while issuing the notification u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and it has been incorporated while issuing notices u/s 9 of the Act ibid, copy of recommendations of the L.A.C is attached herewith as Annexure P/8. There is, thus, a total non-application of mind. According to the notification u/s 6 ibid Killa No. 23(7-12) is stated to have been acquired but while in the notice under Section 9 of the Act ibid whole of the area has been shown to have been acquired. Even the recommendations of the L.A.C. for release of the constructed area has also been ignored without any basis.” In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3, the above reproduced averments were not denied. This is evinced from paragraphs 6(v) and 6(vi) of the counter affidavit, which are extracted below: “6(v). That the contents of Para no. 6(v) of the civil writ Petition are wrong and denied. However, the state Govt, has absolute right to acquire the land for public purpose and the disputed land is also being acquired for serving public purpose i.e. Sector-36 Rohtak. However petitioner has never filed the objection regarding his house. 6(vi). That the contents of para no. 6(vi) of the civil writ petition are wrong and denied. However, it is submitted that there exists a public purpose for which the land has been acquired and there is no illegality or infirmity in the decision of the state. No discrimination has been done with any of the land owners.” Before this Court it has been pleaded that on the date of issuance of preliminary notification the appellants land was vacant, but, this statement cannot be relied upon for denying relief to her because no such averment was made in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court. The policy framed by the Government of Haryana clearly stipulates release of land on which construction had been raised prior to Section 4 notification. The appellants case is covered by that policy. Therefore, her land ought to have been released as was done in the case of M/s. Sharad Farm and Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]we consider it necessary to observe that in the present case no evidence was produced by the official respondents before the High Court to show that possession of the appellants land and the house constructed over it had been taken by the competent authority between 9.12.2009, i.e., the date on which the award was passed and 20.1.2010, i.e., the date on which the writ petition was filed before the High Court. Indeed, it was not even the pleaded case of the official respondents that the house constructed by the appellant was lying vacant on the date of award and some official had put lock over it evidencing the taking over of possession.A somewhat similar question was considered by this Court in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 792 . In that case also, the High Court had non-suited the writ petitioner on the ground that possession of the acquired land had been taken by the concerned officers and the same will be deemed to have vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. This Court took cognizance of the entries recorded in khasra girdawari revealed existence of crops on the acquired land andrespondents have not produced any other evidence to show that actual possession of the land, on which crop was standing, had been taken after giving notice to the appellant or that he was present at the site when possession of the acquired land was delivered to the Senior Manager of HSIIDC. Indeed, it is not even the case of the respondents that any independent witness was present at the time of taking possession of the acquired land.The Land Acquisition Collector and his subordinates may claim credit of having acted swiftly inasmuch as immediately after the pronouncement of the award, possession of the acquired land of Village Jatheri is said to have been taken from the landowners and handed over to the officer of HSIIDC but keeping in view the fact that crop was standing on the land, the exercise undertaken by the respondents showing delivery of possession cannot but be treated as farce and inconsequential. We have no doubt that if the High Court had summoned the relevant records and scrutinised the same, it would not have summarily dismissed the writ petition on the premise that possession of the acquired land had been taken and the same vested in the StateCourt then referred to the judgments in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited (supra), Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (supra), C.Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (supra), Municipal Council, Ahmednagar, v. Shah Hyder Beig (supra) and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the High Court andall the cases, challenge to the acquisition proceedings was negatived primarily on the ground of delay. An additional factor which influenced this Court was that physical possession of the acquired land had been taken by the authorities concerned. In none of these cases, the landowners appear to have questioned the legality of the mode adopted by the authorities concerned for taking possession of the acquired land. Therefore, these judgments cannot be relied upon for sustaining the Highnegation of thechallenge to the acquisition of hisview of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court was not right in holding that the writ petition of the appellant was not maintainable because the same was filed after passing of thethis Court it has been pleaded that on the date of issuance of preliminary notification the appellants land was vacant, but, this statement cannot be relied upon for denying relief to her because no such averment was made in the counter affidavit filed before the High Court. The policy framed by the Government of Haryana clearly stipulates release of land on which construction had been raised prior to Section 4 notification. The appellants case is covered by that policy. Therefore, her land ought to have been released as was done in the case of M/s. Sharad Farm and Holdings Pvt.