Ram Chand vs State of Haryana

Surya Kant, J.—On the oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, State of Haryana through Secretary, Town and Country Planning and Urban Estates Department, is ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 1.

Let necessary correction in the memo of parties be made.

Notice of motion.

On our asking, Ms. Palika Monga, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State Counsel during the course of 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, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the acquisition of their properties vide the Award dated 6.12.1995 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Faridabad. Their grievance is limited to the extent that their residential houses found in existence before issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), as are depicted in the photographs (Annexure P-18), have also been acquired. It is further averred that release of the afore-stated houses would not cause any hindrance in the implementation of the ''public purpose'' of acquisition.

We find that the petitioners have rushed to this Court without approaching the respondent-authorities with a proof that residential houses have been constructed on the acquired land.

We thus dispose of this petition with a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Faridabad to conduct a fresh survey and verify the petitioners'' claim and if it is found that they had constructed residential houses before issuance of notification u/s 4 of the Act, then let their claim be decided in accordance with the Government Policy dated 26.10.2007, which, inter-alia, provides that:-

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 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.........

Let the needful be done within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Till then, status-quo regarding construction shall be maintained by both the parties.