Fateh Singh etc. vs State of Haryana etc.

Jasbir Singh, J.—This judgment will dispose of five writ petitions, i.e., Civil Writ Petitions No. 2254, 2946, 2975, 2976 and 3003, all of the year 1990, as common question of facts and law is involved in all these cases. For facility, to dictate judgment, facts are being mentioned from CWP No. 2254 of 1990.

This writ petition has been filed by the 51 Petitioners/land owners, whose land was sought to be acquired by the Respondents by issuing a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (in short the Act) on January 30, 1989, followed by a declaration issued u/s 6 of the Act on January 25, 1990. Award was passed on January 22, 1992.

Heard counsel for the parties.

This writ petition was filed in the year 1990. Thereafter, it was amended vide order dated March 15, 1992. The Petitioners have challenged the above notifications on a ground that constructed buildings/ residential houses of the Petitioners were in existence when notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued and as such, as per policy of the State Government, acquisition was not justified. To say so, following averment was made in the writ petition:

That the notifications, annexure P1 and P3, are patently illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for the following reasons amongst others:

(a) That the Petitioners constructed residential houses on the land in question after incurring huge expenditure. Certain Petitioners even raised constructions after getting clearance from the Respondent authorities that no such acquisition proceedings were pending with respect to the area in question. The Petitioners have also been provided with electric connections by the Haryana State Electricity Board. On the basis of this position the action of the Respondents in proceeding to acquire the built up residential colony/area is patently illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India..

The Petitioners further alleged that land owned by many other land owners was kept out of acquisition, whereas arbitrarily the said relief was not granted to the Petitioners. In that regard, it was stated as under in this writ petition:

b) That the action of the Respondents in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, is patently illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in as much as the following areas bearing numbers hereinafter detailed, have been left out while issuing notification u/s 6 of the Act. The left out areas include the properties of Land Acquisition Officer, Gurgaon (Sh. Ashok Vashishat) comprised in Khasra No. 149. Other persons whose properties have been left out are Sh. Dhan Singh, Sub Inspector, Haryana Police, Sh. Sultan Singh, Director, Body Building, Haryana Roadways, Sh. Baljit Singh Hans, Advocate and Shri Sukhbir Singh Advocate. It may be also pertinent to point out that Shri Baljit Singh Hans had sold some plots and areas belonging to him and other influential persons have been left out whereas the residential properties of the Petitioners have been acquired. The Khasra numbers which have been left out are as under:

13

16,16/1, 24/1/2, 24/2, 25min,

4

17,18, 19/2, 20/2/2, 21, 22, 23

5

1, 9/2, 10/2, 11/1, 11/2, 20/2

6

6/2/2, 4, 5, 6/2, 7, 8/1, 20/2, 21

7, 10 11

16/1/1, 24/2/2/2, 13/2/2 6

11

13, 123, 124, 142, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151

To the unamended writ petition, reply was filed by Respondent No. 3, wherein it was averred as under:

That the Petitioners No. 21 to 25 are not the owners of the land at all as per Jamabandi of the year 1983-84. The said Petitioners are therefore not entitled to file the present petition. The Civil Writ Petition filed by the above mentioned Petitioners merits dismissal.

That Petitioners No. 1 to 4, 6 to 25, 29 to 43, 45 to 48 did not file any objections u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition Act at all. The said Petitioners are therefore not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings at this stage. The Civil Writ Petition filed by the above said Petitioners is liable to be dismissed.

That there was no construction over the land of Petitioners No. 1 to 20 and 26 to 51 at the time of the publication of notification u/s 4 of the L.A. Act. The entire land of the said Petitioners was vacant and is being acquired fully in accordance with law. The land is agricultural land and it being used for the same purpose. The Civil Writ Petition filed by the above mentioned Petitioners merits dismissal.

To the averments made in paragraph No. 7(a), (b) , it was specifically stated that the land in dispute was lying vacant and was agricultural land in nature when notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued. Regarding discrimination done to the Petitioners, reply given in para No. 7(b) of the written-statement reads thus:

b) That sub para (b) is wrong and hence denied. The land is being acquired fully in accordance with law and there has been no discrimination at all. Shri Ashok Vasistha, Land Acquisition Officer, Gurgaon is not the owner of the land comprised in Khasra No. 149. The said Shri Ashok Vasistha is not the owner of the any land at all. The allegation made by the Petitioners is wrong and hence denied. The details of the land of Shri Dhan Singh, Shri Sultan Singh, Baljit Singh and Shri Sukhbir Singh alleged to have been left have not been given at all. In the absence of the details of the land, it is not possible for the answering Respondent to make a reply. The answering Respondent reserves its right to make a reply to the same at a later stage. However, the land of the persons having construction over it at the time of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act has been left out of acquisition along with proportionate vacant area. No vacant land has been left out of acquisition at all. The land in dispute was completely vacant at the time of publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and is being acquired fully in accordance with law.

It is specifically stated in the written-statement that some of the land owners, who are claiming release of their''s land, were not owners of the land at all. So far as others are concerned, detail of their land has not been given and as such in its absence, it is not possible to give any reply in that regard. In the written-statement, it is further stated that land, only of those land owners, have been left out from acquisition where the construction was in existence with proportionate vacant area. To the amended writ petition, reply was again filed by the Respondent No. 3 reiterating all the averments, mentioned above. To the facts mentioned in the written-statement, no replication has been filed. At the time of arguments, counsel for the Petitioners tried to show us some photographs to say that the area is thickly populated. Be that as it may, all the photographs show the construction, which is new and further that the photographs do not relate to the land owned by the Petitioners. Petitioners are 51 in number. It is nowhere stated as to how much area was their ownership and where it is situated. Detail of construction is also not mentioned anywhere. If that is so, stand taken by the Respondent-State that the land was lying vacant appears to be correct.

In view of above, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners.

Dismissed.