Civil Writ Petition No.18164 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.18164 of 2008
Date of Decision:-11.11.2009
Smt.Neha Mittal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another ---Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:- Mr.R.M.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for
the respondents.
J.S.KHEHAR, J.(ORAL)
State Government issued notification dated 19.1.2006 under
section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as
“the Act”) seeking to acquire 0.26 acres of land. However, without waiting
for the landowners affected by the aforesaid notification to file objections
under section 5-A of the Act, another notification was issued under section
6 of the Act on 20.1.2006, by invoking emergency provision envisaged
under section 17 of the Act.
The petitioner impugned the aforesaid notifications dated
19.1.2006/20.1.2006 by filing Civil Writ Petition No.4794 of 2006, which
came to be partly allowed by this Court on 7.8.2006. While allowing the
Civil Writ Petition No.18164 of 2008 2
aforesaid writ petition, this Court, inter-alia, directed as under:-
“Consequently, we partly allow the writ petition with a
direction that the land owned by the petitioners which
comes in the way of the road proposed to be constructed
and also the portion of the land which forms part of plot
no.2-P shall remain acquired. Rest of the land of the
petitioners shall stand released from acquisition as it does
not fall within the 60 metre wide road.”
Consequent upon the disposal of CWP No.4794 of 2006 in the
terms referred to here-in-above, the Land Acquisition Collector announced
his award on 24.7.2007, depicting the acquisition of 0.19 acres of land (as
against 0.26 acres of originally acquired). The remaining land measuring
0.07 acres, in the ownership of the petitioner, was by natural implication,
released from acquisition.
Despite the success of the petitioner, as has been noticed in the
aforesaid paragraph, fructifying in the release of 0.07 acres of land, the
respondents issued yet another notification dated 19.11.2007 under section
4 of the Act seeking to acquire 0.06 acres of land. Needless to mention that
the land which was ordered to be released on the directions issued by this
Court in CWP No.4794 of 2006 was again acquired. The petitioner did not
file any objections under section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter, the State
Government issued a notification dated 12.8.2008 under section 6 of the
Act, declaring the acquisition of 0.06 acres of land. Through the instant writ
petition, the petitioner has impugned the notifications dated 19.11.2007 and
12.8.2008 (referred to here-in-above).
The first contention advanced by learned counsel for the
Civil Writ Petition No.18164 of 2008 3
petitioner is that, once this Court had arrived at the conclusion while
disposing of CWP No.4794 of 2006, that the land of the petitioner had
wrongly been acquired, and once, this Court had ordered the release of 0.07
acre of land (earlier acquired through notifications dated
19.1.2006/20.1.2006), it was not open for the respondents to acquire the
same land over again.
It is not possible for us to accept the first contention advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioner. When the earlier notifications dated
19.1.2006/20.1.2006 were issued the purpose of acquisition depicted in the
notification issued by the government was, construction of a road. The pleas
of the petitioner while adjudicating upon CWP No.4794 of 2006 were based
on the purpose of acquisition depicted in the notification. This Court arrived
at the conclusion that 0.07 acres of land belonging to the petitioner was not
actually required for the construction of the road under reference.
Accordingly, an appropriate order was passed releasing the land of the
petitioner which could not be utilized for the purpose depicted in the
notifications. That has nothing to do in so far as the present acquisition
process is concerned. While issuing the notifications dated 19.11.2007 and
12.8.2008 the purpose depicted by the respondents for acquiring the land
under reference is “…for the development and utilization of the land as
residential in Sector 6 ….”
The purport of the notifications presently issued, can be
appropriately understood by a reference to the site plan available on the
record of this case, wherein, it clearly stands depicted, that the land of the
petitioner is almost triangular in shape. The site plan depicts, the land of the
petitioner depicted in red, falls in plot Nos.2-P and 3-P. In so far as the land
Civil Writ Petition No.18164 of 2008 4
of the petitioner over plot No.2-P is concerned, the same was ordered to be
acquired even in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP
No.4794 of 2006. The land which remained with the petitioner, is a small
part of plot No.3-P. If the instant land is not acquired, the whole
architectural lay out, at least for one street in the residential complex
envisaged by the respondents will be adversely affected.
In view of the above, we are satisfied that the respondents have
acquired the land which was owned by the petitioner and falls in Plot No.3-
P, for a just and valid cause. As such we find no merit in the first contention
of the learned counsel.
The second contention advanced at the hands of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that, it is not permissible for the government to
change the purpose for which it is presently acquiring the land of the
petitioner. It is submitted that having once depicted the purpose of
acquisition in notifications dated 19.1.2006/20.1.2006, as construction of
road, it is not now open to the respondents to re-acquire the same land, by
asserting that the same was being acquired for residential purposes.
It is not possible for us to accept even the second contention
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since it is not the case of
the petitioner, that the land under reference is being acquired for extraneous
considerations, or on account of mala fides. It is apparent that purpose for
which the land is acquired is not a matter of any personal harm to the
petitioner. Site plan, referred to here-in-above, in an earlier part of this order
reveals that it would be in the best interest of the architectural planning if a
small chunk of land measuring 0.07 acres is acquired so that an entire
unbroken row of the houses can be constructed thereon.
Civil Writ Petition No.18164 of 2008 5
Thus viewed, we find no merit even in the second contention
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the instant
writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(J.S.Khehar)
Judge
(Mehinder Singh Sullar)
11.11.2009 Judge
AS