Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors

3. Necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case of the appellant and also to find out whether the appellant is entitled for the relief as prayed in this appeal.

The appellant is the owner of 5 Kanals 6 Marlas of land out of which 934 square yards have been left out of acquisition. On 07.02.2008, under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, the Haryana Urban Development Authority issued a notice for acquisition of land including that of the appellant for public purpose namely, for the development and utilization of the land as residential and commercial purposes. The notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) and the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Faridabad, Haryana was authorized to issue public notice on the substance of notification at convenient places in the locality. He was also authorized to survey upon the land and take necessary action regarding the same. The appellant filed a detailed objection under Section 5A of the Act categorically stating that the appellant has raised an A Class construction on the concerned area in the year 1999-2000 and therefore, inclusion of the land for the purpose of acquisition is not justified. In the meanwhile, on 10.03.2008, the said land was released by the Authority in favour of Ritwiz Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. However, on 15.09.2008, the Land Acquisition Collector considered the objection filed by the appellant under Section 5A of the Act and as per his report, exempted the land of the appellant from acquisition since there was already a residential building on the land on the date of the notification. In spite of the report produced by the Land Acquisition Collector, the Haryana Urban Development Authority vide notification dated 06.02.2009 made a declaration that the appellant’s land is to be acquired for the development of residential and commercial Sector Nos. 76,77 and 78 for which the notification was initially issued on 07.02.2008.

4. It is the case of the appellant that while issuing the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the property adjoining to the land of the appellant, which belongs to one M/s. Harpreet Food, was released. Though the respondent Authority has released a portion of the appellant’s property, some part of the built-up and constructed portion of the house was not released.

6. The High Court, after hearing both the parties concluded that in all the writ petitions, construction was raised in an unauthorized manner without getting any permission either under the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 or under the relevant Municipal laws. Even then in some cases, relief was granted by releasing some portion of the land under construction and ordering acquisition of vacant land. The action taken by the Authority was held perfectly justified. The Review Application No. 388 of 2011 filed by the appellant against dismissal of his C.W.P. No. 7746 of 2009 was also dismissed on 16.12.2011. Hence, these appeals.

11. Hence, the declaration made by the Government for acquisition of land of the appellant under Section 6 of the Act does not provide any reason for arriving at a decision contrary to that of the report produced by the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, the basic protection to which the landowners are entitled to under the Act through Section 5A is violated. Consequently, the process of acquisition of the land of the appellant is tainted with mala-fide and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in relation to the appellant’s land and the action taken thereon are hereby quashed. The impugned judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside. The appeals are allowed. No costs.

………………………………………………………………………J. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA] ………………………………………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA] New Delhi, January 28, 2014 ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.11 SECTION IVB (For Judgment) S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).14383-14384/2012 VINOD KUMAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s) Date: 28/01/2014 These matters were called on for Judgment today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pawan Upadhyay, Adv.

Ms. Anisha Upadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Param Mishra, Adv.

Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta,Adv.

Mr. Rajan K.Chourasia ,Adv.

Ms. Anubha Agrawal ,Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda pronounced the judgment of the Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhya and His Lordship.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)