Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 839
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURYA KANT, AMOL RATTAN SINGH, JJ.
Sanjay Malhotra & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 6565 of 1991. [O&M]
Decided On: 11th April, 2014.
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Sarv Shri Simarjit Singh Beniwal and Adarsh Jain, Advocates, for the petitioners.
Mr. Indrish Goel, Additional AG, Haryana
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exclusion of the period of stay by an order of the court for computing the period of two years under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act and the genuine public purpose behind the acquisition influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Acquisition of Land for Industrial Use - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9 - The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the acquisition of land for industrial use, citing that the petitioners purchased the acquired land after the issue of Section 4 notification, failed to file objections under Section 5A, and the acquisition had already been upheld by previous court judgments. The court also held that the acquisition was for a genuine public purpose and directed the release of a portion of the acquired land for commercial use to provide an alternative source of livelihood for the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the acquisition of their land for industrial use, claiming that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed, the land was needed for accessing their factory, and there was no public purpose behind the acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners purchased the acquired land after the Section 4 notification, failed to file objections under Section 5A, and the acquisition had already been upheld by previous court judgments. The court also held that the acquisition was for a genuine public purpose and directed the release of a portion of the acquired land for commercial use to provide an alternative source of livelihood for the petitioners.
Issues: The issues included the lapsed acquisition proceedings, the need for the acquired land, and the public purpose behind the acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the acquisition proceedings had not lapsed due to the exclusion of the period of stay by an order of the court for computing the period of two years under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, and that the acquisition was for a genuine public purpose.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the acquisition, upheld the acquisition, and directed the release of a portion of the acquired land for commercial use to provide an alternative source of livelihood for the petitioners.
SURYA KANT, J.
This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 6565 of 1991 and 8600 of 2000 as both the writ petitions have been preferred by the same set of petitioners, who impugn two different acquisition proceedings insofar as the same pertain to acquisition of their land by the State of Haryana. Since some of the issues are overlapping, we propose to decide both the cases together. For better appreciation of the controversy, the facts of both the cases are noticed separately.
2. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 are brothers, while petitioner No.3 is their mother. They impugn the notifications dated 20th August, 1980 and 13th July, 1982 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [in short 'the Act'] as also the notice under Section 9 issued in April, 1991 asking them to appear and file their objections, if any, on 03rd May, 1991 in respect of assessment of compensation for their acquired land comprising Khasra Nos. 121//19/1, 22, 26 situated in the revenue estate of village Jagadhri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. The petitioners' case is that they are running a factory in the name of Maurya Timbers in the Industrial Area, Yamuna Nagar where various types of wooden articles are manufactured. The factory is located in Khasra Nos. 242 and 243 which are not under acquisition, however, they had purchased the land under acquisition for an approach to their factory premises.
4. It appears that Khasra Nos. 242 and 243 where the factory was set up, were also proposed to be acquired vide notification dated 20th August, 1980 issued under Sections 4 of the Act, but on consideration of the objections and a request made by the father of petitioners No. 1 and 2, the State Government vide Memo dated 30th March, 1982 decided to release the above stated two Khasra Numbers, subject to the condition that the owner would enter into an agreement for payment of proportionate development charges and take requisite permission to raise the construction as per the approved plan. The agreement [P6] was accordingly executed and the land measuring 12 Bighas 4 Biswas comprising the above mentioned two Khasra Numbers was exempted from acquisition. The petitioners claim that much before the initiation of acquisition process they had entered into an agreement to purchase the subject and as they needed it for access to their released land where the factory had been set up. However, the sale deed [P7] was executed on 07th April, 1981, i.e., after the issuance of Section 4 notification dated 20th August, 1980.
5. The petitioners' further case is that though the subject acquisition was unsuccessfully challenged before this Court by various owners but they never filed any writ petition or Letters Patent Appeal. They received the first notice under Section 9 in December, 1990 informing them that the Land Acquisition Collector was proposing to pronounce the Award on 3rd May, 1991.
6. The above stated acquisition, according to the petitioners, is bad in law for the reasons like : [i] the time period to pass the Award had elapsed; [ii] they needed the land for bonafide use for access to their factory; [iii] the subject land deserved to be released in the same manner as their land under factory had been released; [iv] the acquisition was discriminatory as the vacant land of various influential persons mentioned in Para No. 10 of the writ petition, had been released; [v] the acquisition is an abuse of power of eminent domain as successive efforts have been made to acquire the subject land since the year 1969; and [vi] during the interregnum the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stood amended w.e.f. 24th September, 1984, therefore also the old proceedings had lapsed and that [vii] the notice under Section 9 issued belatedly was patently illegal.
7. The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Panchkula has filed written statement on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3. One of the preliminary objection is that the subject acquisition was challenged by va
