Krishna Devi vs The State of Haryana and Others

Surya Kant, J.—This order shall dispose of CWPs No. 5211 & 5248 of 2014 as common question of law and facts are involved in these cases.

In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notifications dated 11th July, 2006 & 16th July, 2007 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisitions Act, 1894 respectively, to the extent of acquisition of their land/properties comprising residential houses, structures, godowns and/or industries etc. The ''public purpose'' of acquisition is development and expansion of Industrial Estate at Karnal.

For the sake of convenience the facts of each case may be noticed briefly.

CWP No. 5211 of 2014

The case of the petitioner is that she had purchased land measuring 241 square yards plot comprising Khasra Nos. 3045 & 3046 situated within the revenue estate of Karnal and she constructed a house thereon. The abovestated piece of land has been included in the impugned acquisition, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court.

CWP No. 5248 of 2014

The case of the petitioners is that they had purchased land measuring 750 square yards plot comprising Khasra Nos. 3048, 3264 and 3283 situated within the revenue estate of Karnal by registered vide sale deed 24.03.2006. The petitioners thereafter constructed the boundary wall of their residential plot. The abovestated piece of land has been included in the impugned acquisition, prompting the petitioners to approach this Court.

CWPs No. 5211 & 5248 of 2014

The petitioners impugned the subject notifications qua their respective properties, inter-alia, on the grounds:-

(i) the houses, structures and buildings of similarly placed persons have been released from acquisition on acceptance of their objections u/s 5A whereas the petitioners has been denied such relief in a discriminatory manner;

(ii) the construction was raised by each petitioner before issue of Section 4 Notification and the Land Acquisition Collector recommended the release of their respective properties but those recommendations were mechanically overlooked;

(iii) the residential houses or other structures of the petitioners being in existence before issue of Section 4 notification, otherwise deserve to be released in view of the Government Policy dated 26th October, 2007 as modified on 24th January, 2011;

(iv) the acquisition of functional industries would serve no public purpose when the land has been acquired to expand the industrial estate only.

Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel for the HSIIDC on the other hand submits that the acquisition has been made for a bona fide ''public purpose'' and the petitioners'' properties have not been released as such a recourse would have disturbed the lay out plan of the area. The factum of existence of structures before issue of Section 4 notification, however, is not in dispute and has been duly acknowledged by the other official-respondents in their reply-affidavits.

It may also be mentioned at this stage that when these writ petitions came up for preliminary hearing on 11.03.2004, dispossession of the petitioners was stayed and said interim order is still operating.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

It may be true that the subject acquisition has been made for a genuine public purpose towards the industrial growth of the State by expanding the existing industrial area of Karnal City. However, it is undeniable that the petitioners purchased their respective piece of land for one or the other bona fide personal use namely, either for the residence or godowns/industrial activity, much before initiation of the acquisition proceedings.

The petitioners are owners in possession of very small pieces of land where residential houses of A-Class construction have been raised. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the respondents cannot be permitted to take away the only shelter of poor or middle class families, for the purpose of industrial growth. In CWP No. 21572 of 2011 (Rohtas & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.) decided on 04.09.2013, we have viewed that the dwelling unit in such like cases is referable to the right to live with dignity within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the acquisition qua the land of petitioners is hereby quashed.

We may hasten to add that residential properties have been directed to be released from acquisition though the acquired land is to be developed as an Industrial Area, for the reason that we are informed that the petitioners'' houses are not isolated and are integral part of a residential locality which appears to have been developed unauthorisedly. It has been specifically stated that the other residential houses have been released/exempted from the acquisition. There is thus no rhyme or reason to acquire the residential houses of petitioner alone.