Ranvir Singh vs State of Haryana

Surya Kant, J.—This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 6814, 6819 & 6888 of 2014 as the petitioners in all these cases are aggrieved by the notifications dated 12.03.2013 and 10.03.2014 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ''the 1894 Act''), respectively read with Section 24(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The short grievance of the petitioners against the subject acquisition is that their residential houses as depicted in the photographs appended in all the cases are also sought to be acquired. A pointed reference has been made to the objections filed u/s 5A of the 1894 Act where a specific plea regarding existence of residential house at the time of Section 4 notification has been pleaded. Petitioners'' case is that their objections have been rejected mechanically without any survey and/or spot inspection.

Relying upon the policy decision dated 26.10.2007 coupled with the Hon''ble Supreme Court decision in Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , it is urged that the residential houses of the petitioners which were found in existence at the time of issuance of Section 4 notification deserve to be exempted and/or released from acquisition in terms of Government''s own policy.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the subject acquisition has been carried out for the ''public purpose'' of State-level Sports Stadium in Sector 2, Jhajjar. The public purpose of the acquisition as such appears to have all the ingredients of public interest and also having regard to the cited Government policy coupled with the interpretation of one of its clauses by the Supreme Court, we are of the view that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners requires a dispassionate, objective and sympathetic consideration by the authorities.

As regard to the acquisition of the residential houses especially of poor and middle class persons who have the only solitary shelter for themselves and their family, this Court in Rohtas & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (CWP No. 21572 of 2011) decided on 04.09.2013 viewed that such a property cannot be duped within the parameters of Article 300A alone and would also be referable to Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees right to live with dignity.

Consequently, we dispose of this writ petition, however, without expressing any views on merits at this stage with a direction to the respondents to verify the above-stated claim raised in the light of their own policy decision and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. Appropriate decision shall be taken within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If need be, the authorities shall carry out fresh demarcation/re-survey with advance notice to the petitioners.

Till such a decision is taken, status quo with regard to the demolition/alienation of the subject property(ies) shall be maintained.