Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1410 (PNJ)

Satish Kumar v. State of Haryana

2007-07-27

ARVIND KUMAR, P.SATHASIVAM

body2007
JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. - The petitioners challenge the acquisition proceedings in this writ petition. According to them, they are owners of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 120/19-22, 133/2 and 120/12 Min. measuring about 17 kanals 12 marlas. 2. Mr. R.C. Setia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the site plan Annexure P/4 submitted that when the respondents either release or not taking steps to acquire the entire land in and around the petitioners land, they are not justified in proceeding with the acquisition of the petitioners land. He also contended that in the matter of land acquisition, petitioners cannot be discriminated. 3. On behalf of the respondents, Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Department, Haryana, Hisar has filed written statement highlighting all the details relating to the initiation of acquisition proceedings, namely, details regarding notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act, declaration under section 6 of the Act and passing of award etc. The Land Acquisition Collector has also specifically denied any favourtism or discrimination as claimed by the petitioners. He reiterated that the Government took a decision to acquire the land in dispute because the same exists within the depth of 150 ft. from the existing road. 4. In the light of the above pleadings, we considered the rival contentions. 5. Inasmuch as the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners heavily relied on site plan Annexure P/4, we carefully perused the actual position of the land of the petitioners as well as neighbouring land on either side. It is seen from the notifications, apart from the land of the petitioners, other lands are sought to be acquired by the Government for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization as residential and commercial area under the Haryana Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). It is also highlighted by the respondents in their written statement that the land in dispute is being acquired for the purpose of road widening, provision of service lanes adjoining the existing road, provision of a green belt, residential and commercial development all up to a depth of 500 ft. from the existing road boundary adjoining the sectors 1 & 4 and 3 & 5, Hisar. from the existing road boundary adjoining the sectors 1 & 4 and 3 & 5, Hisar. It is also highlighted that the petitioners and other interested persons who filed objections under section 5-A of the Act within the prescribed period of limitation were properly heard and after giving full opportunity of hearing, the Land Acquisition Collector made a report on individual objections and sent the report with recommendation to the Government for the final decision. It further shows that Government took the decision to acquire the land in dispute because the land in dispute exists within the depth of 150 ft. from the existing road. The written statement further proceeds that even if there is a building or construction up to the depth of 150 ft from the existing road it has to be acquired necessarily for widening of the existing road, green belt and service lanes. 6. As regards the contention relating to discrimination, the Land Acquisition Collector in Para 9 of the written statement has specifically stated that "no discrimination has been done with any of the land owners. The land which could be adjusted in the development plan, has been left from the acquisition...." In Para 10, the Land Acquisition Collector has stated.... "As per planning the land up to the depth of 150 ft. is most important and needed for road widening, provision of service lanes adjoining the existing road and provision of green belt. Hence the structure having A & B class construction outside the depth of 150 ft. have been released. The land in dispute belonging to the petitioners was vacant at the time of notification under section 4 of the Act and it is still vacant at this time also except a small room constructed or their tube well. So the land in dispute which is vacant, cannot be released from acquisition. The petitioners have been awarded fair and adequate compensation as per prevailing market price in lieu of their land and buildings....." In Para 11, the Collector as stated that "only the land which could be adjusted in the development plan, has been left from the acquisition. No discrimination has been done with any of the land owners...." 7. Though the above details have been stated in the written statement dated 30.10.2006, the petitioners have not controverted the same by filing replication till this date. No discrimination has been done with any of the land owners...." 7. Though the above details have been stated in the written statement dated 30.10.2006, the petitioners have not controverted the same by filing replication till this date. The verification of the site plan Annexure P/4 also shows that the lands either released or left out of the acquisition are quite away from the land of the petitioners and not adjoining to their lands as claimed. Even otherwise as rightly stated the land or structure of A & B class construction outside the depth of 150 ft alone have been released and as much as the land in dispute lies within the 150 ft from the existing road, the action of the respondents acquiring the same cannot be faulted with. It is also brought to our notice that compensation has been paid not only of the land but also relating to other super structure such as buildings etc. If the petitioners feel that the amount awarded is not reasonable, they are free to avail reference under section 18 of the Act, if the same is permissible at this juncture. 8. Though learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the letter of Director, Urban Estate, Panchkula to the Administrator, HUDA, Hisar, annexure P/5, submitted that as per contents of the same, the Government ought to have released the land in dispute, first of all the said communication was addressed to HUDA and not to Government and secondly the Government is the ultimate authority to decide which land is to be exempted or released from the purview of acquisition proceedings. Hence, the argument based on annexure P/5 is liable to be rejected. 9. In view of the factual position, particularly the details furnished by the Land Acquisition Collector, with regard to discrimination as well as the need to acquire the land in dispute, we are of the view that to refer the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In fact in view of the factual position discussed above, the decisions relied on by him are not helpful to the case in hand. In the light of what is stated above, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.