Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 889 (PNJ)

Miss Pawan Uppal v. State Of Haryana

2007-04-18

AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition directing the respondents to forebear from taking possession of land situated near link road, Faridabad, on the basis of Notifications dated 1.10.1973 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and 1.10.1976 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 6 of the Act. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that one Mohinder Singh Mangat son of Waryam Singh was owner of the land in dispute which falls in revenue estate of Faridabad. Said Mohinder Singh Mangat raised two buildings on the land in accordance with the building plans sanctioned by the Municipal Committee, Faridabad. Subsequently, the land along with building was sold in favour of Ranjeet Kaur wife of Nahar Singh. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that Ranjeet Kaur leased out the land and building to petitioner No. 2 vide lease deed dated 27.11.1973 and petitioner No. 2 is continuing in possession since then. He is carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. National Packing Industries, Link Road, near Madhuban, old Faridabad City. All the formalities under the Sales Tax Act etc. have been completed and the unit is registered with various Government agencies. 3. It is further pleaded that Ranjeet Kaur died on 23.1.1979 and petitioner No. 1 became owner of the land and building by virtue of a Will dated 13.1.1979, mutation whereof was sanctioned under No. 4032 on 13.9.1979. 4. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 being the owner and petitioner No. 2 being the lessee over the land and that he is running a unit thereupon, the acquisition proceedings are illegal and also discriminatory therefore, are liable to be quashed. Despite the fact that a number of representations for release of the land made vide Annexure P-3 dated 20.12.1976, Annexure P-4 dated 19.4.1978 and Annexure P-5 dated 25.9.1978 were pending decision as is reflected from communications. Annexure P-6 dated 31.12.1979, Annexure P-7 dated 15.9.1980 and Annexure P-8 dated 16.3.1981 yet vide letter dated 26.11.1978, Annexure P-9, a direction has been straight away issued to the petitioners to deliver the possession of the property to the respondents. Accordingly, letter Annexure P-9 is totally illegal. Annexure P-6 dated 31.12.1979, Annexure P-7 dated 15.9.1980 and Annexure P-8 dated 16.3.1981 yet vide letter dated 26.11.1978, Annexure P-9, a direction has been straight away issued to the petitioners to deliver the possession of the property to the respondents. Accordingly, letter Annexure P-9 is totally illegal. The matter was still under consideration for release of land from acquisition and no decision on the representation was taken. The action of the respondents in acquiring land is discriminatory as similarly situated other units have not been acquired or have been released from acquisition. In this regard, a reference has been made to the order passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India dated 23.8.1996 with regard to land acquired under the same Notification. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 who were impleaded as legal representatives of Smt. Ranjeet Kaur, has argued that the petition itself is mala fide. The sequence of facts when considered shows that rightful owners of the land had accepted the acquisition and in fact, the mother of petitioner No. 1 was impleaded as a party alongwith other legal representatives of Ranjit Kaur before the Reference Court (in Reference under Section 18 of the Act). The owners having received part of the compensation, the petitioner have no right to impugn or challenge the acquisition proceedings. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent State has pleaded that the petitioners admittedly had not filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Act, therefore, had waived the objections. With regard to right of petitioner No. 2, it has been argued that since the owners have not challenged the acquisition proceedings, therefore, lessee would have no right to challenge the proceedings. Even application under Section 30 of the Act has not been filed so as to claim part of the compensation. Only the issue of quantum of compensation payable to petitioners, if at all, can be raised, the acquisition proceedings however cannot be challenged. 7. No other issue has been raised nor any other argument has been addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. Sequence of facts required to be seen in this case. Perusal of the record shows that initially Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 1.10.1973. The notification has not been filed along with the petition. 7. No other issue has been raised nor any other argument has been addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 8. Sequence of facts required to be seen in this case. Perusal of the record shows that initially Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 1.10.1973. The notification has not been filed along with the petition. It seems that Notification under Section 6 of the Act was initially issued on 7.1.1974 which notification has also not been placed on record. The award was also made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27.2.1974 in respect of the land in question could not be announced on the said date because of pendency of litigation and stay of proceedings. Be that as it may, Notification under Section 6 of the Act was quashed and it was held that objections under Section 5-A of the Act may be filed again within 30 days. The land owners were given an opportunity to file fresh objections. Subsequently, after all the legal formalities were completed, Notification under Section 6 of the Act (Annexure P-1) was issued on 1.10.1976 which has been impugned in these proceedings. Award was announced on 21.9.1978. 9. Soon after the award was announced, Ranjeet Kaur being the owner of land filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act. During the pendency of the reference proceedings, Ranjeet Kaur died on 23.1.1979. Consequently, an application was filed for impleading the LRs of Ranjeet Kaur in her place. Vide Annexure R-1, order was passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad on 22.8.1989. The application was allowed and the LRs of Ranjeet Kaur were impleaded. Subsequently , the reference under Section 18 of the Act was also decided vide Award dated 6.9.1989 which has been placed on record as Annexure R-2. The Award reflects 8 LRs of Ranjeet Kaur namely: (i) Dalbir Singh son of late Shri Amarjeet Singh son of Smt. Ranjeet Kaur, (ii) Inderbir Singh son of late Shri Amerjeet Singh son of Smt. Ranjeet Kaur; (iii) Satinder Kaur wife of Amarjeet Singh son of Smt. Ranjeet Kaur; (iv) Anand Pal Singh son of Smt Ranjeet Kaur; (v) Prithi Pal Singh son of Smt. Ranjeet Kaur; (vi) Smt. Harpreet Kaur d/o Smt. Ranjeet Kaur; (vii) Smt. Sudarshan Kaur d/o Ranjeet Kaur; (viii) Smt. Anoop Darshan Kaur d/o Smt. Ranjeet Kaur. 10. 10. Perusal of the persons impleaded shows that the person impleaded at Serial No. viii namely Smt. Anoop Darshan Kaur is none other but mother of petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 claims her rights under a Will of Ranjeet Kaur. At no point of time, petitioner No. 1 filed any application for being impleaded in the proceedings before the Reference Court. 11. The objections under Section 5-A of the Act in challenge to the acquisition proceedings considering the fact situation of the petitioners, have not been filed. It is the specific case of the respondents that the claimants namely LRs of Ranjeet Kaur named hereinabove have already taken the compensation amount as enhanced by the Reference Court. Some of the compensation is still to be disbursed as the possession is still with the petitioners on account of stay orders passed by this Court. 12. Having considered the matter, it transpires that the claim of petitioner No. 1 is based on a Will dated 13.1.1979 which, admittedly, was executed after passing of Award on 21.9.1978. Smt. Ranjeet Kaur, the executor of the Will died during pendency of reference under Section 18 of the Act. Under these facts and circumstances, petitioner No. 1 cannot claim any right to challenge acquisition proceedings. This is also so because Ranjeet Kaur under whom petitioner No. 1 claims her right did not file objections under Section 5-A of the Act, rather she specifically accepted the acquisition proceedings and filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act i.e. for enhancement of compensation amount. Reference may be made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Administration V/s. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3737 wherein it has been held that in case no objections are filed with regard to special fact situation in which the objector is placed, it has to be construed that the person concerned has waived off objections which were personal and which he could have raised. 13. As already noticed, mother of petitioner No. 1 having got herself impleaded as one of the LRs of Ranjeet Kaur, has already accepted the compensation amount as enhanced by the reference Court along with seven other claimants. In view of the fact that the awarded amount has been accepted, the petitioners have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. 13. As already noticed, mother of petitioner No. 1 having got herself impleaded as one of the LRs of Ranjeet Kaur, has already accepted the compensation amount as enhanced by the reference Court along with seven other claimants. In view of the fact that the awarded amount has been accepted, the petitioners have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. A claimant/contester cannot take the compensation from the respondents and keep the land too. 14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the undisputed fact that the owners of land, impleaded as LRs of Ranjeet Kaur, have already received part of the compensation amount, the petitioners can not possibly have any locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings. 15. The second petitioner claims the right on the basis of a lease of land from Ranjeet Kaur, Lease-deed is dated 27.11.1973 i.e. after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The second petitioner waited for the entire acquisition proceedings to conclude and has filed the present petition after the award has been announced on 21.9.1978. The acquisition proceedings attained finality on the passing of the award and therefore, petitioner No. 2 also would have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. To make a reference to the order passed by the Supreme Court dated August 23, 1996, it would suffice to say that facts and circumstances of that case were different in so much as the acquisition proceedings were challenged at the appropriate stage. The order does not reflect in any way that the compensation amount was accepted as is the present case. 17. Now so as to deal with the argument of the petitioners that representations were pending and perusal of Annexures P-3 to P-5 shows that the same were being considered yet vide Annexure P-9, the petitioners have been asked to deliver possession. Suffice it to say that the first such representation was made vide Annexure P-3 on 20.12.1976 whereas notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 1.10.1976. The respondent State had therefore already taken a decision to acquire the land. Suffice it to say that the first such representation was made vide Annexure P-3 on 20.12.1976 whereas notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 1.10.1976. The respondent State had therefore already taken a decision to acquire the land. Appropriate stage under the Land Acquisition Act to raise any such objection is provided after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act viz under Section 5-A. No such objection, admittedly, has been filed by any of the persons who had interest in the property at that point of time i.e. 1.10.1973 (the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act). Subsequent representation clearly cannot be construed as objections under the Land Acquisition Act. In any case, perusal of the documents Annexures P-3 to P-8 shows that they do not in any way confer any right with the petitioners and they do not show that any conscious decision was taken by the respondents to release land of the petitioners so as to subsequently cause prejudice to their rights by issuance of order Annexure P-9 where under the petitioners have been asked to deliver the possession of property. 18. The issue of discrimination clearly cannot be raised at this juncture in the facts and circumstances of the present case when claimants have already received part of the compensation amount. 19. The case of the petitioners is not that action of the respondents is malice laden. It is not the projected case that the object for which the authority is vested under the Act in the respondents has been used for oblique purpose or mala fide reasons. I find no illegality or irregularity in the acquisition proceedings so as to call for issuance of any direction in favour of the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any jurisdictional error in the action of the respondents. No irregularity has been committed. The petition is accordingly dismissed.