Civil Writ Petition No.15470 of 2007 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.15470 of 2007
Date of Decision: January 07, 2009
Nabbal and others .......Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others .......Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Shiv Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for HSIIDC.
---
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
This petition seeks quashing of notification dated 31.7.2006
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and notification dated
9.8.2007 under Section 6 of the said Act.
The case of the petitioners is that they belong to Backward
Class Community. In the year 1976, under the scheme of “Indira Awas
Yojna” the petitioners were allotted 3 Marla plots each on certain conditions
to construct their houses. They were also given grant for construction. In
Civil Writ Petition No.15470 of 2007 -2-
the year 1986, they constructed the houses and they have been living in the
said houses since then. The impugned notifications have been issued under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 without any public
purpose and without application of mind to the issue whether the petitioners
who were landless could be dispossessed.
In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the impugned
action has been justified, inter alia, on the ground that the land in question
was contiguous to the Industrial Model Town and there was public purpose
of implementation of projects of Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited for which the land was required. The
objections were also filed. The petitioners have not filed any objections
under Section 5-A of the Act. In para 6 of the reply, it has been stated that
the petitioners are eligible to avail the benefits of a policy for resettlement
and rehabilitation of landowners, framed by the State Government, vide
notification dated 7.12.2007.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the records.
In view of reply filed on behalf of the respondents, we do not
find any ground for holding that the land has been acquired without any
public purpose. At the same time, the State having itself accepted that the
petitioners are eligible for benefits of human rehabilitation, the State must
take steps to rehabilitate the petitioners in accordance with its policy, before
their dispossession.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly by upholding the
acquisition but with a direction that stay of dispossession granted by this
Court on 4.10.2007 will continue till the State rehabilitates the petitioners in
Civil Writ Petition No.15470 of 2007 -3-
the above manner and till the petitioners are compensated for the structures
built by them for which award is said to have been announced.
( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
JUDGE
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN )
January 07, 2009 JUDGE
SRM