Case: Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State Of Haryana

In 1947, the first Prime Minister of India Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru saidelse can wait, but notIn its fifth and final report, the National Commission on Farmers headed by Dr. M.S. Swaminathan observed that prime farmland must be conserved for agriculture and should not be diverted for non-agricultural purposes, else it would seriously affect availability of food in the country where 60% population still depends on agriculture and people living below poverty line are finding it difficult to survive.5. Unfortunately, these words of wisdom appear to have become irrelevant for the State apparatus which has used the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) in last two decades for massive acquisition of the agricultural land in different parts of the country, which has not only adversely impacted the farmers, but also generated huge litigation adjudication consumes substantial time of the Courts. These appeals filed against orders dated 17.5.2010 and 19.11.2010 of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is one of many such cases which the landowners are compelled to file with the hope that by Courts intervention they will be able to save their land.6. The appellant purchased 8 Kanals 4 Marlas land in village Jatheri, District Sonepat in 1984 and is cultivating the same. He claims to have constructed a boundary wall and is growing different crops. His land is surrounded by agricultural fields, factories and residential houses. In the south of his land, there is a canal and a school.7. By Notification dated 22.6.2006 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Government of Haryana proposed the acquisition of 3813 Kanals 17 Marlas (476 Acres 5 Kanals 17 Marlas) land situated at villages Badhmalik, Badkhalsa, Jatheri, Liwan, Pritampura and Rai, Tehsil and District Sonepat for the development of Industrial Sector 38, Sonepat. The appellant filed objections under Section 5A(1) and pleaded that his land may not be acquired because the same was being used for agricultural purposes and was the only source of income for his family. The other landowners also submitted their respective objections. District Revenue Officer-cum- Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat (for short, the Land Acquisition Collector) is said to have heard the objectors on 29.10.2006 and made recommendations for the acquisition of some parcels of land and for release of some other parcels of land specified in Notification dated 22.6.2006. Thereafter, the State Government issued declaration under Section 6 (1), which was notified on 20.6.2007 for the acquisition of 216 Acres 7 Kanals and 11 Marlas land. As a sequel to this, the Land Acquisition Collector passed award dated 28.11.2008.8. The appellant challenged the acquisition of his land in Writ Petition No.8441 of 2009 on several grounds including thethat the notification issued under Section 4(1) had not been published as per the requirement of the statute,(ii) that he was not given opportunity of hearing in terms of Section 5A(2), (iii) that land of large number of persons had been excluded from acquisition at the stage of Section 6 declaration but his land was not released and, in this manner, he had been discriminated,(iv) that there was no justification to acquire his land, which was the only source of livelihood for him and his family,(v) that he was not served with notice in terms of Section 9 (3), and(vi) that the declaration issued under Section 6(1) was not published as per the requirement of Section 6(3).In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it was averred that the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) were duly published; that the appellant was given opportunity of personal hearing and that after issue of declaration under Section 6(1), the Land Acquisition Collector passed the award. It was further averred that possession of the acquired land had been taken and delivered to Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) on 28.11.2008.10. The appellant filed rejoinder affidavit and reiterated that the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) had not been duly published; that he was not given opportunity of hearing by the Land Acquisition Collector; that notice had not been served upon him as per the mandate of Section 9(3). He also pleaded that possession of land was still with him and the paper possession taken by the respondents was inconsequential.11. The Division Bench of the High Court did not examine the grounds on which the appellant challenged the acquisition of his land and dismissed the writ petition by relying upon the judgments of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited (1996) 11 SCC 501 , Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698 , C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (1997) 2 SCC 627 , Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig (2000) 2 SCC 48 and Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 4 SCC 695 , wherein it has been held that once the award is passed and possession taken, the acquired land will be deemed to have vested in the Government and the High Court cannot entertain the writ petition filed for quashing the acquisition proceedings.12. The appellant challenged the order of the High Court in SLP(C) No.26631 of 2010 but withdrew the same with liberty to seek review of the impugned order. Thereafter, he filed Review Application No.321 of 2010. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in NTPC Limited v. Mahesh Dutta (2009) 8 SCC 339 and pleaded that possession of the acquired land cannot be treated to have been taken because the procedure laid down in Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been followed. He also pleaded that paper possession taken by the respondents does not have any sanctity in the eye of law and physical possession of land was still with him. The Division Bench rejected the review application by observing that the order dismissing the writ petition does not suffer from any error apparent. However, the date of filing the writ petition mentioned in paragraph (1) of order dated 17.5.2010 was corrected from 27.3.2010 to 27.3.2009.

Court's reasoning:
Since the appellant has been non suited by the High Court only 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, we think that it will be appropriate to first consider this facet of his challenge to the impugned orders. In the writ petition filed by him, the appellant categorically averred that physical possession of the acquired land was with him and he has been cultivating the same. This assertion finds support from the entries contained in Girdawari/Record of cultivation, Book No.1, village Jatheri, Tehsil and District Sonepat (years 2001 to 2010). A reading of these entries shows that during those years crops of wheat, paddy and chari were grown by the appellant and at the relevant time, i.e. the date on which possession of the acquired land is said to have been taken and delivered to HSIIDC, paddy crop was standing on 5 Kanals 2 Marlas of land. The respondents have not questioned the genuineness and correctness of the entries contained in the Girdawaris. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve or discard the same. That apart, it is neither the pleaded case of the respondents nor any evidence has been produced before this Court to show that the appellant had unauthorisedly taken possession of the acquired land after 28.11.2008. It is also not the pleaded case of the respondents that the appellant had been given notice that possession of the acquired land would be taken on 28.11.2008 and he should remain present at the site. Therefore, Rojnamcha Vakyati prepared by Sadar Kanungo and three Patwaris showing delivery of possession to Shri Yogesh Mohan Mehra, Senior Manager (IA), HSIIDC, Rai, which is a self serving document, cannot be made basis for recording a finding that possession of the acquired land had been taken by the concerned revenue authorities. The respondents 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 pronouncement of the award, possession of the acquired land of village Jatheri is said to have 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 scrutinized 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 Stateview of the above discussion, we hold that the record prepared by the revenue authorities showing delivery of possession of the acquired land to HSIIDC has no legal sanctity and the High Court committed serious error by dismissing the writ petition on the specious ground that possession of the acquired land had been taken and the same vested in the State Government in terms of Sectionis evident from the fact that other objectors had acknowledged the receipt of notices by putting their signatures, the notices allegedly served upon the appellant and his wife do not bear their signatures and no explanation has been offered by the respondents about this omission. The Land Acquisition Collector proceeded to decide the objections by assuming that the notice has been delivered to all the objectors. Not only this, someone in the office of Land Acquisition Collector forged the appellants signature to show his presence in P.W.D. Rest House, Rai on 29.11.2006. A bare comparison of the signatures appearing against the appellants name at serial No.90 (page 184 of the paper book) and those appearing on the vakalatnama and affidavit filed in support of the special leave petitions shows that there is no similarity in the two signatures. Not only this, in the list, appended with Annexure R-3, the appellants wife has been shown as widow of Raghbir Singh. It is impossible to believe that a woman who knows how to sign a document would put signatures against her name showing her as a widow despite the fact that her husband is alive. When the Court pointed out to the learned counsel for the respondents that the signatures appearing against serial No. 90 at page 8 of Annexure R-3 (page 184 of the paper book) do not tally with the signatures of the appellant on the vakalatnama and the affidavit filed in support of special leave petitions, the learned counsel expressed his inability to offer any explanation. He also expressed helplessness in defending the description of the appellants wife Smt. Moorti Devi as widow of Raghbirdeem it necessary to observe that in recent past, various State Governments and their functionaries have adopted very casual approach in dealing with matters relating to the acquisition of land in general and the rural areas in particular and in a large number of cases, the notifications issued under Sections 4(1) and 6(1) with or without the aid of Section 17 and the consequential actions have been nullified by the Courts on the ground of violation of the mandatory procedure and the rules of natural justice. The disposal of cases filed by the landowners and others take some time and the resultant delay has great adverse impact on implementation of the projects of public importance. Of course, the delay in deciding such cases may not be of much significance when the State and its agencies want to confer benefit upon private parties by acquiring land in the name of public purpose. It if difficult, if not impossible, to appreciate as to why the State and its instrumentalities resort to massive acquisition of land and that too without complying with the mandate of the statute. As noted by the National Commission on Farmers, the acquisition of agricultural land in the name of planned development or industrial growth would seriously affect the availability of food in future. After independence, the administrative apparatus of the State has not spent enough investment in the rural areas and those who have been doing agriculture have not been educated and empowered to adopt alternative sources of livelihood. If land of such persons is acquired, not only the current but the future generations are ruined and this is one of the reasons why the farmers who are deprived of their holdings commit suicide. It also appears that the concerned authorities are totally unmindful of the plight of those sections of the society, who are deprived of their only asset like small house, small industrial unit etc. They do not realise that having ones own house is a lifetime dream of majority of population of this country. Economically affluent class of society can easily afford to have one or more houses at any place or locality in the country but other sections of the society find it extremely difficult to purchase land and construct house. Majority of people spend their lifetime savings for building a small house so that their families may be able to live with a semblance of dignity. Therefore, it is wholly unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable to deprive such persons of their houses by way of the acquisition of land in the name of development of infrastructure or industrialisation. Similarly, some people set up small industrial unit after seeking permission from the competent authority. They do so with the hope of generating additional income for their family. If the land on which small units are established is acquired, their hopes are shattered. Therefore, before acquiring private land the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities should, as far as possible, use land belonging to the State for the specified public purposes. If the acquisition of private land becomes absolutely necessary, then too, the concerned authorities must strictly comply with the relevant statutory provisions and the rules of natural justice.