The public purpose of developmental activities outweighs private individual interests in land acquisition cases.

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. Since all the writ petitions arise from a common notification, and, a common declaration, as became issued respectively under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’) and as became respectively issued on 27.01.2003 and on 23.01.2004. Moreover, since all the writ petitions are covered by common thereto awards, as became passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector concerned, in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1894, therefore, they are amenable for being decided through a common verdict. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from the lead writ petition, i.e. CWP-601-2006.

2. The grounds, as raised in the writ petition, are that (i) since earlier to the making of the notification (supra), the disputed lands were exempted from acquisition, thereby the extantly issued notification for acquisition, makes palpable emergence qua the launched acquisition proceedings, rather being drawn through colourable exercise of the power of eminent domain, by the respondents concerned: (ii) that the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 were summarily decided and without any adequate opportunity of hearing becoming assigned to the petitioners, therefore the subsequent thereto proceedings, as became launched by the respondents concerned, are vitiated; (iii) that though in terms of the policy decision drawn on 26.06.1991, wherein, a contemplation occurs for not acquiring built up houses and constructed areas, yet the said policy becoming infringed. Moreover, in making application of the said policy, the respondent- State committing invidious discrimination, inasmuch as, it proceeding to release lands of similarly situated estate-holders concerned.

3. The above made contentions became contested by the respondent concerned, through institution of a reply on affidavit to the writ petition. It is forthcoming from the reply (supra), that the acquisition of the disputed lands was made for its development and utilization, thus for residential, commercial, Sector 18, 19 and 20 part, commercial sector 7 part at Rewari. Moreover, in the reply (supra), it has also been spelt that earlier to the extant motion becoming cast before this Court, a CWP No. 732 of 2006 became instituted before this Court. Through a decision made thereon, on 17.12.2007, the challenge as made therein, to the notification (supra), became discountenanced. Moreover, it is also revealed in the reply (supra), that the aggrieved from the said decision reared there-against SLP (C) respectively bearing Nos. 2550 of 2009, 23397 of 2008, 29193 of 2008, 30810 of 2008, 928 of 2009, 2705 of 2009, 28507 of 2009, 28523 of 2009 and 28533 of 2009, before the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court, through a verdict recorded on 05.09.2014 upon the SLP (supra), after proceeding to annul the verdict (supra), as became rendered by this Court, remanded the lis to this Court for making an adjudication only in respect of the hereinafter extracted two issues:

“(1) Whether the lands being acquired from the ownership of the appellants qualify for exemption in terms of the relevant scheme and policy according to which such of the lands as are already used for construction purpose before the issue of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, can be exempted.

(2) Whether the acquisition proceedings initiated in terms of the notification dated 27th January, 2003 and declaration dated 23rd January, 2014 have lapsed in terms of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.”

4. Therefore, but obviously this Court is to embark, upon, making a decision, whether the petitioners qualify for theirs becoming entitled to the benefit of the policy (supra), but on the anvil, that the constructions, if any, as occur on the disputed lands, can be exempted from acquisition, thus on the trite evident fact