Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 753
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DAYA CHAUDHARY, SUDHIR MITTAL, JJ.
Dharamvir and others - Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 19006 of 2019
Decided On : 01-10-2019
Arun Jain, Adv., Chetan Salathia, Adv., Ankur Mittal, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transactions between landholders and private entities were not voluntary and were brought about by fraudulent influence. The decisions to withdraw from the acquisition process were held to be a fraud on power, and detailed directions were issued to balance the equities between the parties involved.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Fraud on Power - Land Acquisition Act,1894 - Section 4, Section 5-A, Section 6, Section 9 - Summary: The court found that the transactions between landholders and private entities were not voluntary and were brought about by fraudulent influence. The decisions to withdraw from the acquisition process were held to be a fraud on power. Detailed directions were issued to balance the equities between the landholders, those who sold their land, and third parties. The court also directed the recovery of sums made over to 'middle men' and set aside the decisions as being brought about by mala fide exercise of power.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of an order by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (HSIIDC) regarding the retention of their lands, which were subject to acquisition for an Integrated Complex. The land acquisition process was dropped, and subsequent transactions were found to be involuntary and fraudulent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the transactions were not voluntary and were brought about by fraudulent influence. The decisions to withdraw from the acquisition process were held to be a fraud on power. Detailed directions were issued to balance the equities between the landholders, those who sold their land, and third parties.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the order by HSIIDC regarding the retention of the petitioners' lands, which were subject to acquisition. The court also addressed the rights of landholders, those who sold their land, and third parties in light of the fraudulent transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the transactions were not voluntary and were brought about by fraudulent influence. The decisions to withdraw from the acquisition process were held to be a fraud on power. Detailed directions were issued to balance the equities between the landholders, those who sold their land, and third parties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the lands of the petitioners were subject to the deemed award, and there was no illegality in the impugned order dated 27.11.2018. The petitioners were given the liberty to avail the remedy available to them in view of the directions of the Supreme Court.
JUDGMENT :
Sudhir Mittal, J.
1. The petitioners seek quashing of order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as 'the HSIIDC') whereby request of respective petitioners for retention of their lands has not been accepted in view of orders passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India.
2. The petitioners are 105 in number. They are all residents of Village Manesar, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurugram. A total of 912 acres of land was proposed to be acquired for Chaudhary Devi Lal Industrial Township, for setting up of an Integrated Complex for Residential, Recreational and other public purposes, vide notification dated 27.8.2004 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Certain land-owners filed Objections under Section 5-A of the Act and vide report dated 26.2.2005, the Land Acquisition Collector recommended release of 224 acres. Thereafter, Notification dated 25.8.2005 was issued under Section 6 of the Act, declaring that 688 acres of land was required for the aforementioned public purpose. Vide notice dated 2.8.2007, issued under Section 9 of the Act, the land-owners were directed to come present on 26.8.2007 for passing of the Award. However, the Government passed order dated 24.8.2007 withdrawing from the acquisition. On 20.9.2007, the HSIIDC proposed constitution of an Inter Departmental Committee for examining the issue of continuing with the acquisition process. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.01.2010, the State Government finally decided to withdraw from the acquisition proceedings.
3. Meanwhile, certain landholders had challenged the acquisition proceedings but their writ petitions were disposed of as infructuous vide order dated 9.10.2007 on account of the decision of the Government not to continue with the acquisition proceedings.
4. Immediately after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, private entities started negotiating with the landholders for purchase of their lands through 'middle men'. A large number of sales were made between the period 27.8.2004 and 29.1.2010 and the State Government granted licences to the purchasers for development of the land purchased by them. The landholders of the village were extremely agitated when the acquisition proceedings were dropped as they felt cheated. Consequently, CWP No. 23769 of 2011 was filed by 117 landholders challenging orders dated 24.8.2007 and 29.1.2010, whereby the State Government had decided to withdraw from the acquisition. The writ petition was, however, dismissed vide judgment dated 15.12.2014 resulting in filing of an SLP. Leave was granted by the Supreme Court and the SLP was converted into Civil Appeal No. 8788 of 2015 Rameshwar and others versus State of Haryana and others. The said civil appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 12.03.2018 and certain directions were passed. During the pendency of the civil appeal, the Central Bureau of Investigation was directed to register an FIR and conduct an investigation as it was felt that public interest had been made to suffer for the unjust enrichment of a chosen few. While allowing the civil appeal, it was held as under: -
"32. We thus hold that: -
(a) The transactions entered into between the landholders and the concerned builders/private entities in the present case were not voluntary and were brought about by fraudulent influence. Certain 'middlemen' and builders enriched themselves at the expense of the landholders and public interest which was to be achieved by acquisition.
(b) The decisions dated 24.8.2007 and 29.1.2010 as well as entertaining of applications for grant of license from those who had bought the lands after the acquisition was initiated, were not bona fide exercise of power by the State machinery. The exercise of power under the Act was guided by considerations extraneous to the provisions of the Act and as a matter of fact, was designed to
