Sohan Lal Bhagat vs State of Haryana

Gokal Chand Mital and K.S. Bhalla, JJ.

This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 3275, 4455, 4498, 5386, 5405, 5419 and 5423 of 1985, as common questions arise therein, since the land of the petitioners was acquired under the same notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called `the Act'').

The State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act published on 1st September, 1981, for acquiring different areas in the Revenue estates of Gaunchhi, Saran and Mujasar, tehsil Ballabgarh, district Faridabad, for the purpose of development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area in Sector 23, Faridabad. Later on notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 5th November, 1982. Notice under section 9 of the Act issued to the owners to appear before the Estate Officer, Faridabad, on 11th July, 1984 at 10.00 A.M. However, no award was given and since award was not given, the possession of the land was not taken.

Since award fixing market price and awarding compensation was not given, these writ petitions were filed on the basis that acquisition was mala fide and was a colourful exercise of power to acquire the land in order to peg down the prices on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, and as such the acquisition was hit by the judgments of this Court referred to in the writ petitions in which for the aforesaid reasons the acquisitions were quashed. Similar view was taken by a Full Bench of this Court in Radhey Sham Gupta and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1982 R.L.R. 426.

If the judgments of this Court, referred to above, had stood, the petitioners would have had foolproof case but the decisions of this Court in Full Bench and others cases have been set aside by the Supreme Court and one such decision is State of Punjab v. Hari Om Cooperative House Buildings Society Ltd., Maritsar, 1987 S.C.C. 687, which reads as under :

"1. Special leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition, out of which this appeal arises, was allowed by the High Court following its decision in Radhey Sham v. State of Haryana which has been disapproved by this Court in a large number of cases. The writ petition was filed a long time after the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and of the declaration under section 6 of that Act. We do not find any merit in the writ petition. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed in the High Court.

Shri C.M. Nair, learned counsel for Hari Om Cooperative House Building Society, the respondent in this appeal, states that the Government has passed an order dated 30th October, 1981 under subsection (3) of section 275 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act and the Government has permitted the Hari Om Cooperative House Building Society and its members to build houses on a part of the land acquired. It is open to Hari Om Cooperative House Building Society to approach the Government for the release of the land in respect of which the said order has been passed by the Government. The acquisition proceedings, however, cannot be defeated by virtue of the order referred to above. With this observation the appeal is allowed."

While in the High Court delay and inaction on the part of the State Government was considered a reason to hold that the acquisition was malafide with a view to peg down the prices, the Supreme Court considered the delay on the part of he petitioner in coming to court to challenge the acquisition proceedings as fatal. In writ petitions before us the acquisition of the 1st September, 1981 is being challenged by petitions filed in September, October and December 1984.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Hari Om Cooperative House Building Society''s case (supra) the acquisition cannot be quashed on the reasoning that it was malafide or a colourful exercise of power to peg down the prices on 1st September, 1981.

The other argument raised is that the petitioners purchased small pieces of land in a privately developed colony and have built the houses, and the acquisition is also for the same purpose. If petitioners built their houses before the acquisition, they would get compensation for the same but it cannot be said that the Government is not entitled to acquire land for residential/commercial purpose and to frame a planning scheme in this behalf. The purpose of acquisition cannot be said to be beyond the scope of authority because it is for public purpose.

Even if there was some merit on this point, when the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued, the petitioners should have come forward without delay. The delay on their part has disentitled them to any relief in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Hari Om Cooperative House Building Society''s case (supra).

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petitions are dismissed but with no order as to costs.

Petitions dismissed.