Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AJAY TEWARI, RAJESH BHARDWAJ, JJ.
Balbir Kumar & others – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & others - Respondents
CWP-16346-2013(O&M), CWP-6729-2013(O&M), CWP-10452-2014(O&M)
Decided on : 09-04-2021
Land Acquisition Act - Land Acquisition - Sections 4, 6 - The court allowed the petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for the quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and for the release of the acquired land. The court found that the purpose for which the land was acquired was already vitiated as the major chunk of the land belonging to similarly situated landowners had already been released. The court held that denying the prayer of the petitioners in not releasing their land would be a travesty of justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The State of Haryana issued notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, intending to acquire land for residential and commercial purposes. The petitioners challenged the acquisition, contending that their acquired land deserved to be released, as the major chunk of the acquired land had already been released. The respondents justified the acquisition, citing delay and laches on the part of the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the purpose for which the land was acquired was already vitiated as the major chunk of the land belonging to similarly situated landowners had already been released. The court held that denying the prayer of the petitioners in not releasing their land would be a travesty of justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue involved in the petitions was the release of the acquired land, with the respondents justifying the acquisition based on delay and laches on the part of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purpose for which the land was acquired was already vitiated as the major chunk of the land belonging to similarly situated landowners had already been released, and denying the prayer of the petitioners in not releasing their land would be a travesty of justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court allowed all the petitions, quashing the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, and ordering the release of the acquired land.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH BHARDWAJ.J
1. All the aforementioned three petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus for quashing, the notification dated 21.4.1987 (Annexure P-1) and 20.4.1988 (Annexure P-2) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after to be referred to as the Act) respectively and the letter dated 2.5.2013 along with letter dated 29.04.2013 rejecting the claim of the petitioners and further declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the land of the petitioners from acquisition alleging to be illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of the provisions of the Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Primarily, the main issue involved in all these three petitions is the same except some minor factual differences in the measurement and location of the area of the land acquired of the respective petitioners. However, for brevity the facts have been taken from CWP-16346-2013 (Balbir Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others).
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the State of Haryana issued the notification dated 21.4.1987 (Annexure P-1) under Section 4 of the Act intending to acquire the land measuring 35.76 acres for the development and utilization of land as residential and commercial Sector 11, Kurukshetra and the same followed with the notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 20.4.1988 (Annexure P-2). The objections were invited from all the concerned land owners and after carrying out the requisite statutory action, the award was pronounced by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula on 12.4.1990 for the land measuring 34.61 acres only. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the award @ Rs.1,08,000/- per acre for whole of the land under acquisition in village Ratgal and Dara Kalan. Upon this solatium @ 30% and additional compensation @ 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 to the date of award was granted. The petitioners appended the Akshijra plan as Annexure P-4 along with the petition. It has been further contended that thereafter a further notification was issued by the State of Haryana under Section 4 of the Act dated 11.2.2002 for acquiring the land measuring 126.30 acres for residential, commercial and institutional purposes in Section 6 and 11, Kurukshetra. It has been further mentioned that before the issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act the land measuring 81.91 acres belonging to 43 land holders was released, details of which have been furnished in para 4 of the petition. The area of the total land of these 43 land holders amounts to 71 kanals 06 marlas i.e. 8.9 acres, in village Ratgal, whereas in village Dara Kalan the land released was 09.04 acres. The petitioners have further provided details of the land released between the period of notification under Section 6 of the Act and the issuance of award which pertain to 7 different land holders and the area of this land amounts to 13 kanals 08 marlas i.e. 01.67 acres. Further the petitioners have given details of 31 different land holders whose land was released from acquisition in view of the orders passed by this High Court in various writ petitions, the area of which amounts to 326 kanals 08 marlas i.e. 40.80 acres. All these details have been appended along with the petition as Annexures P-6 to P-8.
3. Petitioners have further contended that they had challenged the aforesaid acquisition by filing CWP-371-2008 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.1.2008 by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a representation before the authorities concerned for redressal of their grievance. It has been contended that as a result of the same the petitioners filed a representation dated 22.1.2008 and thereafter a le
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
