Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 2200
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURYA KANT, SUDIP AHLUWALIA, JJ.
Joginder Singh and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10529, 10534, 11366, 12177, 12180, 12182, 12188, 12201, 12651, 13261, 13264, 15704, 15718, 19455 of 2008; 6027, 6138, 4505, 6279, 8571, 13288 of 2009; 15529 of 2014 & 3495 of 2015
Decided On : 07-11-2016
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Mr. Varun Sharma, Mr. Shailendra Jain, Ms. Mannu Chaudhary, Mr. Gaurav Singla, Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Mr. Govind Rana, Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Mr. Hardeep Singh, Mr. Vikram Singh
For the HSIIDC : Mr. Lokesh Sinhal
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Mr. Ravinder Malik, Mr. Puneet Bali, Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Mr. Sumit Singh Bairagi, Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Mr. D.D. Gupta, Mr. R.D. Gupta
The acquisition of land for a genuine and justified public purpose, after due consideration of objections filed by the affected persons, is valid and cannot be challenged on the ground of discrimination or procedural irregularities.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - NOTIFICATION - CHALLENGED - GROUNDS - DISCRIMINATION - RELEASE OF LAND OF AFFLUENT PERSONS - CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS - ROLE OF HSIIDC - EXCHANGE OF LAND - PUBLIC PURPOSE - INTEGRATED INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX - ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES - GREEN BELT - AWARD - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTIONS 4, 5-A, 6 - RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 - SECTIONS 24(1), 24(2).
Fact of the Case:
State of Haryana vide notification dated 27.04.2006 published under Section 4 of the Act, proposed to acquire 237 acres of land for the above mentioned public purpose. After consideration of objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was notified in respect of land measuring about 234 acres. The Award dated 23.04.2009 was finally announced in respect of land measuring 227 acres.
Finding of the Court:
The notifications dated 27.04.2006 and 26.04.2007 issued under Sections 4 & 6, respectively, of the Act as well as subsequent proceedings including the Award dated 23.04.2009 are perfectly valid. The writ petitions challenging the said land acquisition process are hereby dismissed.
Issues: 1. Whether the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the subsequent proceedings, including the Award, were valid? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the release of their land on the ground of discrimination? 3. Whether the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act were duly considered? 4. Whether the HSIIDC could influence the decision-making process under Section 5-A of the Act? 5. Whether the petitioners were entitled to exchange their land with the HSIIDC? 6. Whether the acquisition of land for the development of an integrated industrial complex was a valid public purpose? 7. Whether environmental issues, such as the development of a green belt, could be given precedence over individual hardship? 8. Whether the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, were applicable to the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the subsequent proceedings, including the Award, were valid as they were issued for a genuine and justified public purpose, and the objections filed by the petitioners were duly considered in accordance with law. 2. The petitioners were not entitled to the release of their land on the ground of discrimination as the State Government had withdrawn its earlier decision to release the land of affluent persons, thereby eliminating the foundation of the alleged discrimination. 3. The objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act were duly considered by the Land Acquisition Collector, who gave his own opinion for acceptance or rejection thereof. The State Government also sought comments from HSIIDC, but the final decision was taken by the State Government itself. 4. The HSIIDC could not influence the decision-making process under Section 5-A of the Act as the State Government had the final authority to take a decision on the objections filed by the petitioners. 5. The petitioners were not entitled to exchange their land with the HSIIDC as such issues did not fall within the ambit of the writ proceedings. However, the petitioners were directed to represent to the authorities for the exchange of land, and their claims were to be considered by the official respondents subject to such terms and conditions as may be evolved. 6. The acquisition of land for the development of an integrated industrial complex was a valid public purpose as it would generate employment and revenue, prevent haphazard growth, and promote regulated industrialization. 7. Environmental issues, such as the development of a green belt, could be given precedence over individual hardship as they were of paramount necessity to detoxify the adverse effects of traffic and industrial activities. 8. The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, were applicable to the case as the acquisition process had been initiated before the new Act came into force, but the Award was passed after the new Act came into force.
Final Decision: The writ petitions challenging the land acquisition process were dismissed. The petitioners were directed to represent to the authorities for the exchange of land, and their claims were to be considered by the official respondents subject to such terms and conditions as may be evolved. In CWP No.3495 of 2015, the acquisition was upheld, but it was held that the petitioners would be entitled to compensation of the acquired land in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.
Surya Kant, J.
This order shall dispose of the above-captioned cases in which the petitioners have laid challenge to the notifications dated 27.04.2006 and 26.04.2007 issued under Sections 4 & 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). In some of the writ petitions, the Award dated 23.04.2009 is also under challenge. The impugned acquisition process pertains to the acquisition of the land measuring 227 acres situated within the revenue estate of villages Karnal and Kambopura, for the public purpose of setting-up Industrial Estate, Sector-37, Karnal, to be planned and developed as an Integrated Complex for Industrial and other Public Utilities by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructural Development Corporation (for short, ‘HSIIDC’).
FACTS:
2. State of Haryana vide notification dated 27.04.2006 published under Section 4 of the Act, proposed to acquire 237 acres of land for the above mentioned public purpose. After consideration of objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was notified in respect of land measuring about 234 acres. The Award dated 23.04.2009 was finally announced in respect of land measuring 227 acres.
3. After the announcement of Award, the State Government vide order dated 03.01.2013 released 22 acres of the acquired land and the major beneficiaries of that released order are some of the writ petitioners only but they being still dissatisfied, have pressed their respective writ-petitions on merits, so as to seek the release of their entire or substantial part of the acquired properties/land. It is thus necessary to briefly notice the facts of each case separately as well.
(1) CWP No.10529 of 2006 (Joginder Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others)
The petitioners’ land measuring 91 bighas 3 biswas situated within the revenue estate of Kasba Karnal, the details whereof are given in para Nos.2(a) & (b) of the writ petition, stands acquired vide the impugned acquisition. They filed three sets of objections under Section 5-A of the Act. In the first set, they sought release of the land measuring 2 bigha 12 biswa comprising khasra No.9327 where a motor garage and a restaurant in the name and style of ‘Neelkanth Dhaba’ are set up. In the second set of objections, they sought release of land measuring 36 bigha on the plea that there exists a residential house. In the third set, they claimed the release of the left-out khasra numbers on the ground that the same are required for the 'Neelkanth Dhaba', the 'cattle shed' and also there was a pakka room existing at the site. The petitioners also alleged discrimination as the vacant lands of affluent persons like the brother Rajnik Mann and the mother (Smt. Subhash Chandrika) of the then local MLA Smt. Sumita Singh was released on pick and choose basis.
4. The Land Acquisition Collector partly accepted their objections and while recommending to acquire the land for which the first and third sets of objections were filed, he recommended the release of 6 bigha 11 biswa land where residential house was built up. Those recommendations were accepted and the above-mentioned land was not included in the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioners’ land comprising khasra No.9328 (0-6) and khasra No.9327/2 (0-4) was released on 03.01.2013 under Section 48 of the Act. Since major chunk of the petitioners’ land remains yet under acquisition, they are still aggrieved and seek quashing of the entire acquisition. The Land Acquisition Collector, HSIIDC as well as State Government have filed their respective replies-cum-affidavits taking a categorical stand that the acquisition has been made meticulously following the mandatory procedure and that objections filed by the petitioners or other affected persons were duly considered on merits. As regard to the petitioners’ land, HSIIDC has placed on record the site photographs to urge that most of the land is lying va
