Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Krishan Chander and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7317 of 2019, SLP (Civil) No. 3213 of 2016
Decided On : 17-09-2019
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 48 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Release of land from acquisition – Writ petition was dismissed at threshold without directing notice to respondents and considering grievance of appellants in backdrop of contention urged – It was necessary for High Court to secure records and consider as to whether possession had been validly taken and handed over to HUDA as claimed – Fact of possession actually having been taken would require determination at the outset based on examination of records – Aspects as pointed out relating to deletion of similar lands and as to whether land acquired from appellants is lying vacant and if so whether appellant is similarly placed as that of other land owners whose case was considered under Policy for deletion are aspects which are to be examined by High Court by notifying respondents and permitting them to file their objection statement and also after securing records and verifying the same – Impugned order set aside and Writ Petition restored to file of High Court for fresh consideration. (Paras 6, 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of Case:
Appellants are assailing order passed by High Court for States of Punjab and Haryana in CWP. Through the said order case sought to be made out by the appellants seeking release of the land from the process of acquisition is not considered favourably. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
Keeping in view that the writ petition filed before the High Court was in a certiorari proceeding, it was necessary for High Court to secure the records and consider as to whether the possession had been validly taken and handed over to HUDA as claimed. Further whether in the layout plan as referred in the order dated 11.10.2014 impugned in the writ petition, the very item of land belonging to the appellants was reserved for institutional plot, green belt and parking areas as claimed and as to whether the surrounding area had been developed by HUDA by forming the residential plots was also to be considered, though not in the nature of an appeal, but to satisfy itself on perusal of relevant records.
Result : Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
A.S. BOPANNA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are before this Court assailing the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 22656/2015. The said writ Petition was disposed of along with the writ petition bearing CWP No. 22652 and 22653 of 2015 through a common order. Through the said order the case sought to be made out by the appellants seeking release of the land from the process of acquisition is not considered favourably. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed by the High Court.
3. The brief facts are that the lands bearing Khasra No. 19/2, 9 measuring 16 kanal situated in Village Para, District Rohtak, to which the appellants’ claim that their father was the owner, among other lands of several other land owners was acquired for development of Sector 36, Rohtak by issuing the Notification dated 15.12.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act for short). The final declaration under Section 6 was issued on 14.12.2007. The appellants contend that the land has not been utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired and in respect of several other lands acquired for the same purpose, it has been deleted from the process of acquisition and as such the lands belonging to the appellants also be deleted. In that regard the appellants, at the first instance, had approached the High Court through CWP No. 5836 of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of through the order dated 27.03.2014 whereby the High Court on taking note of the contentions had issued direction to the respondents to verify the claim of the appellants and on objective consideration of the whole matter if the authorities are of the view that there is no likelihood of utilisation of the appellants’ land for any public purpose, consider the desirability of releasing the same subject to the condition that the compensation if any received be refunded. Pursuant thereto the representation dated 20.02.2014 which had already been made by the appellants was taken note and an order dated 10.11.2014 was passed by the Secretary-cum-Director General, Urban Estates Department Haryana, rejected the claim of the appellants. Against such rejection, the appellants were before the High Court in the present round of litigation assailing the order dated 10.11.2014 which has led to the instant appeal. The respondents through the counter affidavit filed herein on behalf of the respondent No. 2 have opposed the instant appeal.
4. Heard Shri J.B. Mudgil, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri B.K. Satija learned counsel for the respondents and perused the appeal papers.
5. As noticed the claim put forth on behalf of the appellants is that the land bearing Khewat No. 599/553 Khatoni No. 671, Killa No. 19/2 (80) and 9(80) total measuring 160 situated within the Revenue Estate of Mouza Para, Hadbast No. 67, Tehsil and District Rohtak though sought to be acquired under the Notification dated 15.12.2006 and 14.12.2007 for forming the Sector 36 layout, the said land has not been utilised. In that regard seeking release of unutilised and unused land the appellants had made the representation dated 20.02.2014. Since the request made through the representation is rejected through the order dated 10.11.2014 the writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 22656/2015 was filed which is dismissed. A perusal of the order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the High Court would disclose that the High Court, having taken note that the impugned order discloses that while considering the representation the State Government has found that the land was vacant at the time of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act and it is still lying vacant, the release in view of the Policy dated 26.10.2007, modified on 24.01.2011 is not tenable since the said policy pertains to release of land over which the residential buildings have been constructed. Taking note of the same the High Court has dismissed the petition wi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
