Gurdev Singh and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—In this petition, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to determine the market value of the land acquired on behalf of Municipal Committee, Thanesar, under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (in short the Act) with further direction to respondent No. 3 to make payment in respect of land acquired.

It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 3 framed and adopted Town Planning Scheme No.7-B in the area of village Darra Kalan, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, which was sanctioned and notified by respondent No.l vide notification dated 13.11.1990 u/s 203 of the Act. The land of the petitioners fell in the said Town Planning Scheme No.7-B. It is further their case that out of total land measuring 114 kanals 2 marlas, 35.94 per cent land has been transferred to the Municipal Committee, in Town Planning Scheme. It is contended that since the land in excess of 25 per cent has been transferred, the petitioners are entitled to the compensation in regard to the land which was in excess of 25 per cent of the total land covered under Town Planning Scheme No.7-B. Petitioners have further stated that the action of the respondents in taking land of the petitioners without any compensation is clearly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as well as provisions of the Act.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, Shri T.V.S.N. Prasad, Deputy Commissioner, has admitted that the total area of petitioners 1 and 3 falling in Town Planning Scheme No.7-B was 114 Kanals 2 Marlas. He has further stated that possession of the land was given to the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board on 31.8.1992 following the adoption of the Town Planning Scheme for the construction of road. He has submitted that the respondents are pursuing the matter with the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board so that compensation is paid to the landowners. Respondent No. 2 has also admitted that petitioners have been making representations to the respondents for making the payment of compensation to them, that the amount has not been paid till date by the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board. He has further stated that he is pursuing the matter with respondent No. 1 and the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board so that compensation could be paid to the petitioners.

Section 203(1)(c) of the Act provides that the land in an unbuilt area shall be transferred to the committee for public purposes including use as public street by the owners on payment of compensation or otherwise, provided that the total amount so transferred shall not exceed 40 per cent and the amount transferred without payment shall not exceed 25 per centum. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Yogendra Pal and others Vs. Municipality, Bhatinda and another, , has declared provisions of Section 203(1)(c) of the Act violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. But, however, considering that it would not be in public interest to unsettle the settled state of affairs and it would create total chaos and unmanageable situation for the municipal committees if provision of Section 203(1)(c)is declared void with retrospective effect, the provisions have been declared to be void from the date of decision of the Supreme Court i.e. w.e.f. 15.7.1994. Since in this case, land, was transferred and possession taken before 15.7.1994, petitioners are entitled to the compensation of land which has been acquired in excess of 25 per cent of their land holders. Respondents are also not denying the entitlement of the petitioners to receive compensation of the land which has been acquired in excess of the 25 per cent of the total holdings. The only contention raised by the respondents is that they are pursuing the matter regarding payment of compensation, with the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board to whom the land was given for construction of road. The land was taken for public purpose on the basis of notification '' dated 13.11.1990 issued by the Haryana Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 203 of the Act and, therefore, it is only the respondents who are liable to make payment to the petitioners. In my view, simply because the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board has not made any payment, respondents cannot withhold the payment indefinitely.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and respondent No. 2 is directed to determine the compensation payable to the petitioners in accordance with the provisions of Section 203(1)(c) of the Act within three months from the date of furnishing of certified copy of the order by the petitioners and on such determination the respondents are directed to make the payment to the petitioners with interest at fee rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of possession of land was taken from the petitioners till making the payment. No costs.