IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 18370 of 2008
DATE OF DECISION: October 23, 2008
Sumesh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The petitioner has challenged notification issued under
Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). It is pertinent to mention that the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had filed a suit for possession
of the land in question which was contested by the respondent State.
It was alleged in the suit that the respondent State has illegally
dispossessed the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The
respondent State contested the claim made by them and asserted to be
owner by way of adverse possession. The suit was dismissed by the
C.W.P. No. 18370 of 2008 2
Trial Court holding that they were the owner of the suit land and the
respondent State became the owner by adverse possession. However,
the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was reversed by
the Additional District Judge as well as by this Court. The findings
recorded by this Court in R.S.A. No. 1471 of 1979, decided on
8.1.1991 (P-1) are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner
were the owner and the respondent State of Haryana did not become
owner by virtue of adverse possession. Thereafter, the judgment and
decree was sought to be executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioner. The State of Haryana again filed objections which were
dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 15.4.1994.
Against the aforementioned order the respondent State filed Civil
Revision No. 2106 of 1994, which was dismissed on 26.4.2006 (P-3).
In the concluding para of the judgment this Court while dismissing
the revision petition has observed that the respondent State would be
free to acquire the property in dispute as per law. It is thereafter that
the present petitioner had purchased this property from their
predecessor-in-interest. The State of Haryana has issued the
impugned notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of
the Act for the purposes of constructing Government Senior
Secondary School in Village Sarai Khawaja, Tehsil and District
Faridabad.
Having heard learned counsel at a considerable length
we find that after the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has been
declared to be owner of the suit property and their suit for possession
was decreed then there cannot be any bar for the respondent State to
acquire the land in question for a public purpose. The establishment
C.W.P. No. 18370 of 2008 3
of a educational institution like the School is a public purpose within
the meaning of Section 17(2)(b), as per local amendment made in the
Act. Moreover, this Court while dismissing Civil Revision No. 2106
of 1994 has granted liberty to the respondent State to acquire the
property in dispute as per law. We find no legal infirmity in the
course adopted by the respondent State in acquiring the land in
dispute.
The argument of the learned counsel that dispensing with
the filing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act is arbitrary and
they could have shown that a school is already in existence on the site
failed to impress us. The aforementioned argument deserve to be out-
rightly rejected because while dismissing R.S.A. No. 1471 of 1979 on
8.1.1991, this Court has recorded categorical finding that there was
no evidence showing any construction on the suit land. Once this is
the position then no argument on that account could be raised. The
writ petition is wholly misconceived and is, thus, liable to be
dismissed.
For the reasons aforementioned this petition fails and the
same is dismissed.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JORA SINGH)
October 23, 2008 JUDGE
Pkapoor