Case: Patasi Devi Vs. State Of Haryana

The appellant, who owned 14 kanals 8 marlas land situated in the revenue estate of Mouza Para, challenged the acquisition of her land in Writ Petition No. 2494/2010. She pleaded that in the garb of acquiring land for a public purpose, the State Government misused its power under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act for the benefit of respondent No.6 M/s. Ujjawal Coloniser Pvt. Ltd. of Delhi, who was constructing residential colony known as Sun City; that her land should have been exempted/released in terms of the policy framed by the State Government because she had constructed a house prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; that she has been discriminated inasmuch as land belonging to M/s. Sharad Farm and Holdings Pvt. Ltd. had been released vide letter dated 4.9.2008, but her land was not released and that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated due to non-application of mind by the functionaries of the State Government and violation of the rules of natural justice. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 3, an objection was raised to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the same was filed after passing of the award. On merits, respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not dispute that the appellants land was surrounded by the land of respondent No.6, who was developing residential colony but pleaded that the acquisition was for a public purpose i.e. development of Sector 36, Rohtak. The plea of discrimination raised by the appellant was contested by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 by asserting that the appellant had not filed objections under Section 5A(1).The High Court did not decide the appellants challenge to the acquisition of her land and dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that it was filed after passing of the award. For arriving at this conclusion, the High Court relied upon the judgments of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited (1996) 11 SCC 501 , Municipal Council, Ahmednagar, v. Shah Hyder Beig (2002) 2 SCC 48, C.Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu (1997) 2 SCC 627 , Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698 and M/s. Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan JT 2008 (2 ) SC

Court's reasoning:
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.