Kundan vs State of Haryana

Surya Kant, J.—Notice of motion to respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5.

On our asking, Mr. R.D. Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on their behalf.

Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of the day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, neither there is any need to issue notice to respondent No. 3 nor any counter-reply from respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 is needed at this stage.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the notifications dated 7.2.2008 (Annexure P-7) and 6.2.2009 (Annexure P-9) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the Act''), respectively, whereby his land measuring 19 kanal 16 marlas fully described in para No. 2 of the writ petition, situated within the revenue estate of village Faijjupur Majra Neemka, Tehsil and District Faridabad, has been acquired. The acquisition has been made ''for the development of residential and commercial Sectors 76, 77 & 78 at Faridabad'' under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, to be developed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, ''the HUDA'').

The principal grievance of the petitioner is that even if the acquisition of vacant agricultural land for the notified public purpose is assumed to be valid, his residential house comprising ''A'' Class Construction located on the land measuring three kanal deserves to be released from acquisition. It is pointed out that the petitioner is residing in this house for the last more than 30 years. The factum of existence of residential house before issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act has been duly admitted and acknowledged by the respondents in the report u/s 5-A of the Act. The petitioner has placed on record photographs to substantiate his plea.

We find from the photographs that the structures raised by the petitioner are undoubtedly old.

The petitioner relies upon the Government Policy dated 26.10.2007, which, inter-alia, provides:-

The Government has framed a comprehensive policy as detailed below:-

1) No request will be considered after one year of award. Only those requests will be considered by the Government where objections u/s 5-A were filed.

2) Any request or application where structures have been constructed will only be considered for the release u/s 48(1) provided the structure exists prior to section 4 and is inhabited.

3) Any factory or commercial establishment which existed prior to Section 4 will be considered for release.

xx xx xx xx

The afore-said policy has been held to be enforceable by the Supreme Court in Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana and Others, observing as follows:-

Before this Court it has been pleaded that on the date of issuance of preliminary notification the appellant''s land was vacant, but, this statement cannot be relied upon for denying relief to her because no such averment was made in the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court. The policy framed by the Government of Haryana clearly stipulates release of the land on which construction had been raised prior to issuance of Section 4 notification. The appellant''s case is covered by that policy. Therefore, her land ought to have been released as was done in the case of M/s. Sharad Farm and Holdings (P) Ltd.......

During the course of hearing learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that against the same acquisition, CWP No. 24113 of 2011 (Dharamveer versus State of Haryana and others) was allowed by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2013 quashing the impugned notifications to the extent of acquisition of petitioner''s (Dharamveer) residential house, subject to the condition that the respondents shall inform the amount, if any, to be refunded by the petitioner and he shall then deposit the same within a period of one month from the date of receiving communication from the respondents.

We, thus, disposed of the instant writ petition also in terms of the above-mentioned order passed in Dharamveer''s case (supra).

Ordered accordingly.

Dasti.