In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 21510 of 2008
Date of Decision: September 01, 2009
Dharam Chand
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others.
... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand.
Present : Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,
for respondents No. 1,2 and 4.
Ms. Preeti Khanna, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral)
Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the action of the respondents in acquiring the land of the petitioner vide
notifications dated 26.09.2007 and 25.09.2008 issued under Sections 4 and
6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
respectively. The claim of the petitioner to seek release of his land from the
process of acquisition is primarily based on the fact that the Land
Acquisition Collector, while adjudicating upon the claim raised by the
petitioner in an application filed under Section 5A of the Act, had
recommended the release of the petitioner’s land, as the same had
CWP No.21510 of 2008 2
constructed buildings thereon. It is also the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, that similar structures in the form of residential
buildings, wherever available, have been taken into consideration for the
release of the land from the process of acquisition. As such, it is contended,
that the land of the petitioner should also be released.
Learned counsel for respondents No. 1,2, and 4 has invited our
attention to two facts; firstly, that the limited construction on the acquired
land owned by the petitioner (which has not been released from the process
of acquisition) comprised of `kacha’ rooms in one corner. These rooms were
being used for storing agricultural material. It is, therefore, sought to be
submitted, that the constructed area on the petitioner’s land was not being
used for residential purpose, and, therefore, could not be considered at par
for release. Secondly, the constructed area on the land (which has not been
released from acquisition) was not such as would cause any irreparable loss
to the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1,2 and 4 also
submitted, that insofar as the constructed area of the petitioner’s land
(which was being used for residential purpose is concerned), the same has
been exempted from the process of acquisition. For the instant (referred to
above) two pleas, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on
paragraph No.4 of the preliminary objections contained in the joint written
statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, as also, on the
averments made in paragraph no.8 of the reply on merits, in the written
statement filed on behalf of respondent No.4.
We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the rival parties, on the basis of the facts noticed hereinabove.
Since the land of the petitioner, wherein there was construction which was
CWP No.21510 of 2008 3
being used for residential purposes, has already been released from
acquisition. Since the land of the petitioner which has been acquired was
only being used for storage of agricultural material. The petitioner had made
a few `kacha’ rooms at one of the corners of the acquired land, and as such,
cannot be considered to have been discriminated against, or to have been
put to irreparable loss. As such,we are satisfied, that the determination of
the claim of the petitioner at the hands of the respondents was in
consonance with law.
For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the
instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
( J.S. Khehar )
Judge
September 01, 2009 ( S.D. Anand )
vkd Judge