Back
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 49 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Writ Petition No.3855 of 1982
Dr. Jagdish Singh Sarkaria & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 12/11/2009}
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6--Publication of Notification in locality--Entry in Roznamcha Wakiali contains number of gazettee notification--In pursuance thereof 29 land owners had filed their objections--No malafide levelled against government--Statement of Patwari relied upon regarding dispute of publication of notification incomplete--Held, that substance of notification was published/announced in locality--Entry in the Roznamcha Wakiati was made on 25th June, 1980 contains the number of gazette Notification in pursuance thereof, 29 land owners had filed their objections--No malafide has been leveled against the Government--Substances of Notification was published.
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6--Acquisition of land--Notification--Subsequent notification--Validity of earlier notification--In view of the interim order, Government officials, proceeded to acquire the land of other land owners by issuing fresh Notifications--Action of the respondents in issuing subsequent Notifications does not lead--Held, That subsequent issuance of Notifications, will not supersede the Notifications issued earlier. (P.40)
(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4 & 6--Acquisition of land--Subsequent purchasers--Sale of land and separate agreements of collaboration executed after issuance of notification--Subsequent purchasers and signatories to collaboration agreements not entitled to question validity of notification.
(E) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6--Acquisition of Land--Release of land--Discrimination--Due consideration was given to request made by applications and their collaborator for release of land--Land belonging to applications exclusively planned for economically weaker sections category--No case of individuous discrimination made out--No interference--Due consideration was given to the request made by petitioners No.8 and 9 and their collaborator, for release of the land. It was brought into light that the land, which was released in favour of petitioners No.1 to 3 and Ishwar Chand Aggarwal and others, falls within Part 1 of Sector 20, Panchkula, whereas the land belonging to the applicants falls in Part 2 of Sector 20, Panchkula, which was exclusively planned for economically weaker section category--Application filed by petitioners No.8, 9 and 11, we are of the view that no case of individuous discrimination, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, is made out. (P.48 & 51)
(F) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.226--Public interest litigation--Proper sewerage system--Grievance of petitioners that sewerage and storm water gather in front of their housing societies and emit foul small and cause pollution--Making life of petitioners have become miserable--In reply HUDA stated that sewerage line could not be connected with main sewerage as petitioners to CWP no. 3855 of 1982 and CWP No. 3673 of 1983 were having order of stay of dispossession in their favour--These writ petitions has been decided and order of stay of dispossession is no longer in substance--Authorities who have to lay pipe and connect sewerage pipe of area with main sewerage treatment may proceed immediately--HUDA directed to take all effective adequate steps to redress grievance of petitioners.
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.:- Chandigarh, the city beautiful, was developed and created in an area spread over 114.59 square kilometers in the footsteps of Shivalik hills as new capital for the State of Punjab after partition. In the words of Jawahar Lal Nehru, Chandigarh represented vision of modern India “Unfettered by the traditions of the past, a symbol of nation’s faith in future”. In 1966, re-organization of the State of Punjab took place and Chandigarh was declared as capital for both the States of Punjab and Haryana. Chandigarh also became border city for Punjab and Haryana. Eastern Chandigarh bordered Haryana, while to the west was Punjab. The greenbelt created around Union Territory, Chandigarh to check the haphazard urban growth lost its effectiveness, as Haryana developed a new town of Panchkula, whereas Punjab developed S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Both, Panchkula and S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali are described as satellite towns of Chandigarh.
2. A writ petition bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 3065 of 2008 titled as ‘Aarushi Cooperative Group Housing Society and another v. Chief Administrator, HUDA and others’ came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. In this writ petition, the residents of two Cooperative Societies, which are situated in Sector 20, Panchkula, invoked public interest jurisdiction of this Court by impleading the Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as, ‘HUDA’); the Director, Health Services Haryana and the Chairman, Haryana State Pollution Control Board and prayed that the Chief Administrator, HUDA Complex, Panchkula be directed not to pollute and discharge sewerage in their locality, especially on the road in front of main gates of the petitioner societies. The petitioner societies made a grievance that HUDA has not laid down proper sewerage and storm water disposal system. Thus, sewage and contaminated polluted water accumulates in open space on the road adjoining the petitioner societies and in front of Economically Weaker Section houses and plots. According to petitioners HUDA had ignored weaker section of the society by not connecting the sewage system laid for sector 20, Panchkula with the sewage treatment plant. To support this contention, photographs were also annexed. The Division Bench of this Court, while issuing notice, observed that this petition cannot be entertained as public interest litigation, but in the larger interest of the environment and its effect on the members of the societies, it be treated as a writ petition under environmental laws. In response to a notice issued to it, HUDA filed its counter affidavit and stated therein that though the answering respondent had laid proper sewage and storm water disposal system for the petitioner societies, houses and plots of economically weaker section in Sector 20, Panchkula, because of grant of stay of dispossession by this Court, in favour of the land owners, whose land was sought to be acquired, sewerage lines cannot be laid and connected with the sewage treatment plant, and made functional. Therefore, on September 30, 2008, it was ordered by this Court that CWP No. 3673 of 1983 titled ‘Charan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another’ be heard along with CWP No. 3065 of 2008. It was reported by the office that CWP No.3673 of 1983 was ordered to be heard along with CWP No.3855 of 1982 titled ‘Dr. Jagdish Singh Sarkaria and others v. State of Haryana and others’. Therefore, that writ petition was also listed along with CWP No.3065 of 2008.
3. It is in the above backdrop that CWP No.3855 of 1982 titled ‘Dr. Jagdish Singh Sarkaria and others v. State of Haryana and others’; CWP No. 3673 of 1983 titled as ‘Charan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another’ and CWP No.3065 of 2008 titled as ‘Aarushi Cooperative Group Housing Society and another v. Chief Administrator, HUDA and others’ were heard together and shall stand decided by the common order. Fourth writ petiti
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
