Civil Writ Petition No. 16752 of 2008 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.16752 of 2008
Date of decision: 4,11,2008
Hari Pal
....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Hryana etc.
....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH.
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.
Present: Ms.Meenakshi Dogra, Advocate for petitioner.
****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
This judgment shall also dispose of connected Civil Writ
Petition No. 16770 of 2008 (Devi Ram v. State of Haryana and
others) as common questions of law and facts arise for consideration
in these writ petitions.
The present writ petitions have been filed under Articles
226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of Notifications
dated 3.10.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for
short, ‘the Act’) (Annexure P-1) and dated 1.10.2007 under Section 6
of the Act (Annexure P-3) whereby land of the present petitioners has
been notified for acquisition despite the fact that land in question is
already being used for residential purposes by the petitioners since
the year 1949.
The facts of the case as mentioned in CWP No.16752 of
Civil Writ Petition No. 16752 of 2008 [2]
2008 are that petitioner is owner in possession of land situated in
the revenue estate of village Nathupur and his father had constructed
houses and the same are being used only for residential purposes.
After the death of his father, the petitioner is also residing in the said
house for the last more than 50 years. The said land was acquired
by the State Government and notifications under Sections 4 and 6
were issued, which have been challenged in the present writ
petitions. It is averred that petitioner filed objections under Section 5-
A of the Act but those objections were not heard by the respondents
and no opportunity of hearing was ever granted.
Ms. Meenakshi Dogra, learned counsel for petitioner,
argued that land in dispute was purchased from Gram Panchayat on
the basis of its Resolution passed in favour of the petitioner. She
argued that the Gram Panchayat did not get the sale deed
registered in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, petitioner filed a
civil suit for mandatory and permanent injunction, which was
decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 7.9.2005.
She argued that residential house of the petitioner has not been
released by the Land Acquisition Collector which is contrary to the
policy. It has also been argued that land in dispute is being used for
residential purposes since the time of his father and no survey was
conducted before issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act.
Moreover, as per policy of the State Government, the land which
was constructed prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act , was
to be released but the same has not been released. It is also the
argument of learned counsel for petitioner that land has been
acquired for development and utilization for residential, commercial
Civil Writ Petition No. 16752 of 2008 [3]
and institutional purposes and for that purpose, he is entitled for the
release.
We have heard arguments of learned counsel for
petitioner and perused documents on record.
The petitioner has challenged notifications only on the
ground that the land in dispute has been purchased from the
Panchayat and the same is being used for residential purposes for
the last many years and since the time of his father. The petitioner
has not established that action of the respondent-authorities is
malafide or arbitrary and that land of other similarly situated persons
has been released. The petitioner establishes his ownership on the
basis of judgment and decree of the civil court dated 7.9.2005. The
land in dispute belongs to Gram Panchayat which was purchased by
the petitioner by way of Resolution passed by it. Though the
petitioner establishes his ownership on the basis of judgment and
decree of the civil Court, but nowhere it has been pointed out as to
how much and of what type ofconstruction is there on the land in
dispute and how the authorities have not considered his case.
Hence, the petitioner has not made out a case for release of the
land in dispute. Moreover, learned counsel for petitioner has not
been able to point out as to whether any pick and choose method
was adopted by the respondents in acquisition of the land. Even till
today, the land in dispute has not been registered in favour of the
petitioner and unless and until the land is registered, Gram
Panchayat will remain owner of the land in dispute. Ownership of
the petitioner over the land in dispute is still in dispute in the absence
of the registration and the petitioner has no ground to challenge the
Civil Writ Petition No. 16752 of 2008 [4]
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.
We find no merit in these petitions and the same are
dismissed in limine.
(UMA NATH SINGH) (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE JUDGE
4.11..2008.
raghav