Siri Pal vs State of Haryana and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 157, 158, 159 and 582 of 1996 as a common issue relating to the validity of the notification regarding acquisition of land arises in all the 4 cases. The petitioners in these writ petitions pray that the notifications dated November 9, 1992 and November 6, 1993 issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, be quashed. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the factual position in Civil Writ Petition No. 157 of 1996. It may be briefly noticed,

A notification u/s 4 was issued on November 9, 1992 for acquisition of land situated in different villages in district Sonepat including land measuring 329.73 acres in village Sultanpur. The land was being acquired for the public purpose of development of residential and commercial area. After consideration of the objections, a notification u/s 6 was issued on November 6, 1993 in respect of land measuring 329.03 acres. The land belonging to the petitioners was included in the acquisition. The petitioners have inter alia alleged that after the publication of the notification u/s 6, the State has excluded some land from the acquisition proceedings. However, no exemption has been granted in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners. On this basis it has been alleged that "the action of the respondent-State is wholly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." The petitioners, thus, pray that the notifications be quashed.

The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by the respondents. In reply to the charge of discrimination, it has been specifically pointed out that "the released area is situated at a distance of about 200 feet from the land in question and the same has been released in view of objections filed by the concerned owner and the same was adjustable in layout plan, whereas the land of the petitioner could not be released as the same was not adjustable in layout plan and specially, the petitioner failed to file any objection u/s 5A of the Act despite wide publicity."

Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in all these four cases is that the re A spondents have granted exemption to certain persons while a similar relief has been declined to the petitioners. Thus, the action is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The claim made on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondents.

It is the admitted position that the petitioners had not filed any written objection after the issue of notification u/s 4. Still further, even at the stage of filing of this writ petition sufficient particulars of the land which has been exempted from the acquisition vis-a-vis the land of the petitioners has not been provided so as to enable the Court to examine the factual position. It is, undoubtedly, correct that the petitioners have produced a site-plan and alleged that the respondent-State has excluded from acquisition "area shown in green colour" and refused to grant exemption to the petitioners whose land is shown in orange colour. Factually, no land has been shown in orange colour in the site plan. Leaving that aside, the petitioners having filed no objections before the authority and having not disclosed as to what was the construction on the land, we cannot say that the respondents have acted arbitrarily. In any event, the land is being acquired. If there is any structure, as has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners, on any part of the land, they will be entitled to the grant of compensation therefor.

Mr. Kapoor submits that exemption has been granted to certain other persons. The petitioners had a right to a parity of treatment. He has relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Devinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 1995 PLJ 123. We are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel. In this case, the Court had come to a definite finding that the land had been released in a haphazard manner. In the present case, there is nothing before us which may help us to reach that conclusion. Still further, even if it is assumed that exemption was wrongly granted to certain other land owners, it does not entitle the petitioners to the grant of the same relief or an annulment of the notifications. In Yadu Nandan Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, it has been categorically held by their Lordships that- "the wrong exemption under wrong action taken by the authorities will not clpthe others to get the same benefit nor can Article 14 be pressed into service on the ground of invidious discrimination". This decision completely answers the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.

Mr. Kapoor has also referred to the decision in Stale of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishnan, 1996 (1) RRR 638. Learned counsel has pointed out that some land was directed to be excluded from acquisition for meeting the bona fide need of the land owners for residential purposes. In these cases, learned counsel for the petitioners has not referred to anything on record to show that the petitioners have no residential accommodation or that they have no other land on which they can build the houses. No factual data has been given or referred to so as to enable us to sustain the claim as sought to be made at the time of the hearing of the case.

It is true that an Administrative authority has to act fairly. It cannot act arbitrarily. However, in the cases before us it has not been pointed out that the respondents had acted unfairly. We may also notice that the impugned notifications have already been upheld by different Benches of this Court in various Civil Writ Petitions including C.W.P.Nos. 18257 of 1995, 18780 of 1995, 5460 of 1995, 16687 of 1995, 15960 of 1995, 16161 of 1995 and 1090 of 1996.

In view of the above, we find no ground for interference. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs.