THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005
DATE OF DECISION: December 3, 2008
Jagdish Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate,
for respondent No. 3.
None for respondent No. 4.
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.
1. The instant petition prays for quashing notification dated
11.8.2004, issued under Section 4 and declaration dated 9.8.2005,
made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity,
‘the Act’) [Annexures P-30 and P-34]. The petitioner has claimed
that the industrial land of the petitioner has been acquired by the
C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 2
aforementioned acquisition. He has also prayed for issuance of
directions to the respondents to release the land from the purview of
the instant acquisition proceedings in terms of the policy of the State
Government dated 4.2.2006 (P-40 & P-41).
2. The total area belonging to the petitioner sought to be
acquired is 24 Kanals 9 Marlas, which is claimed to be a compact
area abutting Palam-Gurgaon road, shown in orange colour in the
Sajra plan (P-1). The petitioner has disclosed the acquisition was
also sought to be made in the year 1973 and 1982. The notifications
issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on 6.7.1981and 25.6.1982,
with regard to the petitioner’s land and his co-sharer were challenged
in C.W.P. Nos. 1917 and 1918 of 1984. The notifications were
quashed on 26.3.2003. A copy of the judgment has been placed on
record (P-12). The petitioner has claimed that the unit of the
petitioner is known as ‘Yadav Welding Works’. The petitioner is
aggrieved by the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the
Act on 11.8.2004 and 9.8.2005 (P-30 & P-34 respectively).
3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has not
been afforded any opportunity of hearing under Section 5-A of the
Act when objections were filed by him. The Division Bench noticed
the contention of the petitioner and observed that sweeping
statements were usually made alleging non-hearing without any
serious thought. Therefore, the Division Bench required the
petitioner to deposit Rs. 25,000/- with the Registrar of this Court and
in case the assertion was found to be incorrect then deposit was to be
forfeited in favour of the respondents. Accordingly, the petitioner
deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 23.12.2005. The other ground
C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 3
pleaded is that there is factory on the land and according to the policy
of the respondent State the same could not be acquired. In that
regard, reliance has been placed on the policy dated 4.2.2006.
4. In the written statement the respondents have claimed
that the land belonging to the petitioner is required for development
and utilisation of Industrial Sector 18, Electronic City at Gurgaon
under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. It has
also been pointed out that all necessary steps under Section 4 were
taken. A categorical stand has been taken that the petitioner filed
objection under Section 5-A of the Act and he personally appeared
before the Land Acquisition Collector for hearing of objections,
which were heard and considered in accordance with law. The
Collector after hearing objections filed by the petitioner as well as
other land owners sent his report to the Government for taking
decision in the matter. Beside, the Joint Site Inspection Committee
also sent its report to the Government and it was thereafter that the
Government decided to issue a declaration under Section 6 of the Act
on 9.8.2005, which has also been published in the newspapers on
13.8.2005. An entry of the declaration has also been made in the
Roznamcha Wakayati Halqa Patwari and Rapat No. 636 of 11.8.2005
and all further necessary steps have been taken. Even the award has
been announced on 8.12.2006 although possession could not be
handed over to the representative of the Estate Officer, HUDA,
because a stay order was operating since 8.12.2005. It has been
conceded that there was a Dharam Kanta (weighing machine) in the
area measuring 65’x 25′, on the land in dispute when notice under
Section 4 of the Act was issued on 11.8.2004 but the same could not
C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 4
be released by the Government. The rest of the land has been found
to be vacant and there was no factory on the land in dispute when
notification under Section 4 was issued.
5. Mr. Shailendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner
has vehemently argued that no personal hearing was granted to the
petitioner before issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act
on 9.8.2005. According to the learned counsel in the absence of any
opportunity of personal hearing no declaration could be made as the
provisions of Section 5-A of the Act are mandatory. He has also
submitted that the petitioner has factory over the land in dispute and
the same should have been released from acquisition, especially in the
light of the policies of the respondent State.
6. Mr. Ashish Kapoor and Mr. Arun Walia, learned counsel
for the respondents have, however, vehemently argued that in para 2
of the preliminary objections of the written statement filed by
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as para 11 of the reply on merits, a
specific stand has been taken that the petitioner was given notice of
hearing of objections by the Land Acquisition Collector and the
petitioner personally appeared and the Collector after hearing
objections sent his report to the Government. The only construction
found on the land in dispute was a weighing machine in the area of
65′ x 25′ at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the
Act on 11.8.2004. Therefore, no legal infirmity could be found in the
acquisition proceedings.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a
considerable length and perusing the record with their able assistance,
we are of the considered view that the instant petition is devoid of
C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 5
merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. The respondents have taken
minute care in issuing notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act.
It has been found that when notification under Section 4 of the Act
was issued on 11.8.2004, only a weighing machine in the area of
65′ x 25′ was in existence. There was no factory as is claimed by the
petitioner. The aforesaid factual position has not been controverted
by filing any replication. A visual examination of the photographs
Annexures P-19 and P-21 do not reveal the existence of building.
The area, particularly in photographs Annexure P-21 is vacant, which
appears to be under use for welding work. Even the photographs in
Annexure P-18 do not show any factory as such. There are certain
corrugated sheets on the walls. According to the assertion made by
the respondents, there was no factory or structure on the land when
notification under Section 4 was issued. Therefore, we find that on
that account no legal infirmity could be found in the acquisition
proceedings. The land has been found to be plain with only weighing
machine installed in the area of 65′ x 25′ and no interference on that
account is called for. The public purpose for the acquisition of land is
development and utilisation of the area for industrial purposes at
Gurgaon for development plan under the HUDA. The public purpose
is sought to be justified in the written statement by stating that
Electronic City in Industrial Sector 18, Gurgaon, is contemplated and
the land is likely to be utilised for that purpose. Even otherwise, we
find that all steps for acquisition with regard to publication of
notification in the official gazette, newspapers, issuance of notices
under Section 5A and grant of hearing to the objectors with a report
to the Government have been meticulously followed. Likewise,
C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 6
declaration under Section 6 has been made by publication in the
official gazette beside in various newspapers. The entries have also
been made in the revenue record and publicity has been given to the
notification by beat of drum in the vicinity. No infirmity noticing any
lapse could be found in acquisition of the land in question.
8. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that hearing of objections filed under Section 5-A has not been
granted and on that account the acquisition is liable to be set aside, is
wholly misconceived because the argument is falsified on perusal of
para 2 of the preliminary objection and para 11 of the reply on merit
of the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 which are
extracted below for facility of reference:-
“2. That the petitioner filed the objections u/s-5A of
the L.A.Act. The petitioner was given notice of hearing
of objections u/s-5A by the Land Acquisition Collector.
In response to the said notice the petitioner personally
appeared before the Land Acquisition (Collector?) for
hearing of objections u/s-5A of the L.A. Act. He was
given full opportunity of personal hearing of objection as
per the provisions of the Act. His statement was
recorded. He signed the same before the Land
Acquisition Collector. After hearing and considering the
objections as per the L.A. Act, the Land Acquisition
Collector sent its report to the Govt. The Joint Site
Inspection Committee also sent its reports to the Govt.
After perusal of the entire record and the reports of Land
Acquisition Collector and Joint Site Inspection, the
C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 7Govt. decided to issue the declaration u/s-6 of the Act
well in accordance with the provisions of the L.A. Act.”
“11. That in reply to para No. 11 of the Amended Civil
Writ Petition, it is submitted that the petitioner filed the
objections u/s-5A of the Act. The petitioner was given
the notice of hearing of objections u/s-5A by the Land
Acquisition Collector. In pursuance of the said notice,
the petitioner personally appeared before the Land
Acquisition Collector for hearing of the objections. The
detail of construction on the land in dispute has already
been given in forgoing paras. The said construction
(Dharam Kanta) has not been released from acquisition
by the Govt. The land in dispute has already been
acquired for public purpose as per the demarcation plan
submitted by the Distt. Town Planner, Gurgaon. It is
denied that the land in dispute is being acquired at the
behest of the colonizer.”
9. A perusal of the aforementioned paras shows that the
petitioner was granted opportunity of personal hearing of objections.
His statement was recorded and he signed the same before the Land
Acquisition Collector. The Collector sent his report to the
Government. The aforementioned assertion made by the respondents
has not been controverted by filing any replication. That being the
factual position, no fault can be found in the acquisition proceedings.
Accordingly, the argument raised is wholly misconceived and is
liable to be rejected.
C.W.P. No. 18560 of 2005 8
10. The other argument of Mr. Jain that the petitioner has
been subjected to hostile discrimination as land of some other land
owners/industries has been released does not call for any detailed
examination because firstly the land of the petitioner was found to be
vacant at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 and
secondly the Courts cannot act as expert to record a finding as to
which part of the land would be required for developing industry. In
that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made in the
case of M/s Anand Buttons v. State of Haryana, AIR 2005 SC 565
(See paras 11 & 13).
11. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same
is dismissed in limine. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the
petitioner in pursuance to order dated 15.12.2005, with the Registrar
of this Court would also stand forfeited. The Registrar is directed to
release a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JORA SINGH)
December 3, 2008 JUDGE
Pkapoor