Back
2013 Supreme(P&H) 1152
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURYA KANT & SURINDER GUPTA, JJ.
Sultan Singh & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents
CWP No. 14340 of 2011. [O&M]
Decided on: 29th November, 2013
Sarv Shri Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, P.R.Yadav, Shailendra Jain, Advocates & Mr.Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the HSIIDC.
Mr. P.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for respondent No.4. (in C.W.P. No.4581 of 2012)
Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate, for respondent No.5 (in C.W.P. No.4581 of 2012)
The court emphasized the right of landowners to seek equality and consequential benefits if they could make a case for denial of parity, even if they did not submit objections under Section 5A. It annulled the denial of benefits to such landowners and directed the authorities to re-evaluate the release of properties based on the government policy and to consider claims of parity among landowners.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Public Purpose - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 5A, 6 - The court disposed of multiple cases involving challenges to land acquisition for industrial development. The petitioners, including individuals and companies, contested the acquisition of their land for a planned industrial complex. The court considered issues related to the consideration of objections under Section 5A, the right to challenge acquisition without submitting objections, and the alleged discriminatory release of certain properties from acquisition. The court upheld the public purpose of the acquisition but annulled the denial of benefits to landowners who did not submit objections under Section 5A. It directed the authorities to re-evaluate the release of properties based on the government policy and to consider claims of parity among landowners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners contested the acquisition of their land for a planned industrial complex, alleging discrimination and challenging the consideration of objections under Section 5A. Some petitioners did not submit objections under Section 5A but sought to challenge the acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the public purpose of the acquisition but annulled the denial of benefits to landowners who did not submit objections under Section 5A. It directed the authorities to re-evaluate the release of properties based on the government policy and to consider claims of parity among landowners.
Issues: Consideration of objections under Section 5A, right to challenge acquisition without submitting objections, alleged discriminatory release of properties from acquisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that landowners who did not submit objections under Section 5A but could make a case for denial of parity were entitled to seek equality and consequential benefits. It annulled the denial of benefits to such landowners and directed the authorities to re-evaluate the release of properties based on the government policy and to consider claims of parity among landowners.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the cases, upholding the public purpose of the acquisition but annulling the denial of benefits to landowners who did not submit objections under Section 5A. It directed the authorities to re-evaluate the release of properties based on the government policy and to consider claims of parity among landowners.
SURYA KANT, J.
This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 14340, 19320, 24150 of 2011, 4581 of 2012, 10094 and 10550 of 2013 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For better appreciation of the points in issue, a brief reference to the facts of each case is required to be made.
CWP No. 14340 of 2011 [Sultan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.]
[2]. Petitioner No. 1 and his five sons impugn the notifications dated 13th May, 2010 and 12th May, 2011 issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of acquisition of their land measuring 30 kanals 12 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Malpura, Tehsil & District Rewari. They are said to have constructed residential houses on different Khasra Numbers fully described in Para 2 of the writ petition where as many as six families are residing and the entire land has been developed as a 'Dhani' [hamlet]. It is averred that the petitioners are agriculturists and the vacant land is used by them for growing vegetables or green fodder for cattle etc. The acquisition of the land, according to the petitioners, has taken away their only source of livelihood as it is a fertile agricultural land. The petitioners allege mechanical rejection of their objections submitted under Section 5A of the Act as well as discrimination meted out to them in the matter of release of their residential houses/land. The petitioners are said to be residing in their residential houses for the last over 50 years.
[3]. It may be mentioned at this stage that vide impugned notification dated 13th May, 2010, State of Haryana expressed its intention to acquire 494 Acres 3 Kanals 6 Marlas land for the development of Industrial Sectors 15, 16 and 17 at Dharuhera, as an Integrated Complex for Industrial and other Public Utilities. The land proposed to be acquired comprised revenue estate of villages Kapriwas, Malpura and Ghatal Mahniawas, Tehsil & District Rewari. The final declaration under Section 6 of the Act was notified on 12th May, 2011 for the land measuring 435 Acres 1 Kanal and 12 Marlas and the Award is said to have been passed on 10th May, 2013 for 430 Acres of land. A part of the petitioners' land has also been included in Section 6 notification.
[4]. State of Haryana and Director, Industries have filed their written statement maintaining that the subject acquisition has been made for a bonafide public purpose, namely, planned integrated complex for industrial and other public utilities to be developed by the State Agency, namely, Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructural Development Corporation Limited. This area was designated as 'industrial zone' by the Town and Country Planning Department in the year 2007 and in conformity with the Development Plan that the subject acquisition has been made. It is maintained that the objections filed by landowners including the petitioners under Section 5A were duly considered by the Land Acquisition Collector, Rewari who submitted his recommendations to the State Government. Since HSIIDC is the Project Development and Implementation Agency, the State Government sought its comments on the recommendations received from the Land Acquisition Collector. In addition, the views of Deputy Commissioner, Rewari were also obtained. Thereafter, a team of senior officers led by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department, Haryana visited each of the sites in respect of which objections were filed and after due deliberations and fair assessment by that team, that the final declaration under Section 6 notified.
[5]. As regard to the petitioners' claim, it is averred in the written statement that six sets of objections were filed by them for the release of their land measuring 35 kanals 10 marlas on the plea that they have constructed six double storeyed residential houses. It was also mentioned that the land comprising Khasra Number 23/21/3[10] was donated by them to a rel
