Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1270 (PNJ)

Rakesh Kumar Jain v. Lakhan Lal

2012-09-21

JASBIR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, ACJ.: (Oral) - This order shall dispose of CWP No.22010 of 2011 and CWP Nos.16933, 17145 and 18502 of 2012. 2. Petitioners are the poor farmers whose land has been put under acquisition vide notification dated 15.01.2008 (P-4) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and notification dated 14.01.2009 (P-6) issued under Section 6 of the Act. 3. Land of the petitioners is situated in two triangular shaped areas as shown in the site plan annexed with record as Annexure P-3 in CWP No.22010 of 2011,which has been marked by us with letters “A B C D E F”. Land shown in green colour on the roadside in that site plan stands exempted from acquisition. Patches of land shown in blue colour have also been released after acquisition. The land shown in green and blue colours was released when the award was passed on 12.01.2011. 4. At the time of arguments, it is brought to our notice that vide letters dated 12.04.2012 and 05.06.2012, land measuring 422 Sq. Yards and 200 Sq. Yards respectively was also released from acquisition. It is not in dispute that the land measuring about 26 acres was released in favour of the builders after issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, the said land is shown in yellow colour in the above site plan. 5. Taking note of the abovesaid facts, we passed the following order on 13.09.2012:- “This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the notifications dated 15.01.2008 (Annexure P4) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) and dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure P6) issued under Section 6 of the Act, vide which land of the petitioners was acquired for the development of residential Sectors 21 and 22 at Sirsa. It is necessary to mention here that the notification dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P4) was issued to acquire the land measuring 272.89 acres of village Vaidwala, 76.13 acres of village Khairpur and 1.51 acres of village Najadela, total land measuring 650.53 acres. Thereafter, a notification dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure P6) under Section 6 of the Act was issued for the land measuring 337.47 acres. So far as village Khairpur is concerned, the land under acquisition remains the same. Thereafter, a notification dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure P6) under Section 6 of the Act was issued for the land measuring 337.47 acres. So far as village Khairpur is concerned, the land under acquisition remains the same. After issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, a large chunk of land owned by the builders was kept out of acquisition which is shown in yellow colour in the site plan (Annexure P3). The released land is to the extent of 26.522 acres. By making reference to the above site plan, it is also brought to our notice that the shops situated on the road leading from Sirsa to Barnala, shown with green colour in the site plan, was also kept out of acquisition. In the same fashion, the land shown in blue colour was also released when the award was passed. The land of the petitioners in this writ petition and in Civil Writ Petitions No.16933 of 2012 and 17145 of 2012 shown in pink colour and blue shaded lines is situated next to the area left out of acquisition and shown in green colour where shops are situated and the land shown in yellow colour which is owned by the builders. The land of the petitioners is in two triangular shape areas. From the situation as depicted above, we find that it is a clear case of discrimination and further it is not viable for the authorities to implement the Scheme, for which the land was put under acquisition. Mr. B.S.Rana, Additional Advocate General, Haryana is directed to get response from the Government. Adjourned to 19.09.2012. A copy of this order, duly attested by the Court Secretary of this Court, be furnished to Mr. Rana for onward transmission and compliance.” 6. In response thereto, Mr. Rana informs us that the State authorities are agreeable only to release the land which was under construction before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 7. It is not in dispute that construction do exist on part of the land of the petitioners under acquisition. It has been so admitted by the respondent No.2 in its written statement. 7. It is not in dispute that construction do exist on part of the land of the petitioners under acquisition. It has been so admitted by the respondent No.2 in its written statement. In the written statement filed by the Administrator, HUDA, Hisar, it is stated as under:- “As per report under section 5A of the Act, petitioner No.1 was having construction of house of 30' x 40', petitioner No.5 was having a shop of 11' x 33' and `A’ class residential house of 30' x 55', petitioner No.13 was having `A’ class residential house of 30' x 60' in Khasra No.26//1 and petitioner No.17 was having `A’ class residential house of 30' x 55' but all these constructions fall in green belt and the then Land Acquisition Collector recommended for their acquisition.” 8. Under the above situation, we feel that the land owned by the petitioners is encircled by an area left out of acquisition shown in green, blue and yellow colours in the site plan (P-3) and it will not be possible for the authorities to use the said land for the purpose for which it was acquired, i.e. for the development of residential Sectors 21 and 22 at Sirsa. 9. At the time of arguments, letter dated 31.08.2012 has also been placed on record which was written by District Town Planner, Sirsa to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa, wherein it has been very candidly stated that the planning of the land/area owned by the petitioners may not be possible. Relevant portion of the letter dated 31.08.2012 reads thus:- “After release of shops along Sirsa-Barnala road now there is no proper opening left for the pockets acquired behind these shops as shown in the plan in black colour. From the perusal of plan this will be observed that most of the structures of petitioners are falling in the proposed green belt along Sirsa-Barnala road. These structures are in contiguous form as already reported by Joint Inspection Committee in year 2007 and 2008. The location of released structures have been procured from the office of land acquisition officer, Hisar, accordingly the released structures have also been denoted on the Sajra plan duly signed by LAO, Hisar. Presently, in view of densely existing structures, the proposed service road/green belt is not feasible at site. The location of released structures have been procured from the office of land acquisition officer, Hisar, accordingly the released structures have also been denoted on the Sajra plan duly signed by LAO, Hisar. Presently, in view of densely existing structures, the proposed service road/green belt is not feasible at site. Moreover re-planning of these pockets is also not feasible in the light of existing structures on date and the licenses/change of land use granted in the vicinity. As per office record, the location of each site relating to the petitioners (17) has also been denoted in the proposed layout plan of Sector 21-22 Part, Sirsa along with released structures and other existing structures. The detail of existing constructions of the petitioners regarding existence before Section 4 is attached herewith as Annexure-A along with soft copy.” 10. In CWP No.18502 of 2012, land of petitioner No.1 to the extent of 1 Kanals 17 Marlas and of petitioner No.2 to the extent 5 Kanals ½ Marla has been shown in red and green colours in the site plan (Annexure P-3 therein). In that land also, there exists construction. 11. At the time of arguments, Mr. Rana, except raising the plea of delay on the part of the petitioners to challenge the acquisition, has failed to show anything further. To the contrary, it is case of the petitioners that they came to know about factum of exemption of land in favour of the builders etc. after issuance of the award and, thereafter, the present writ petitions were filed. 12. It is a clear case of discrimination. Land of the poor farmers has been put under acquisition, whereas huge chunks of land owned by the builders and others were exempted from acquisition, even after issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, for which no explanation has been given. 13. In view of the facts mentioned above, all these four writ petitions are allowed and acquisition of the land of the petitioners in all the writ petitions made vide notification dated 15.01.2008 (P-4) issued under Section 4 of the Act, notification dated 14.01.2009 (P-6) issued under Section 6 of the Act and award dated 12.01.2011 (P-7) is quashed.