Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 537 (PNJ)

Dalbir Singh Lochab v. State of Haryana

2013-04-26

A.N.JINDAL, HEMANT GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. C.M. No. 17513 of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. C.M. No. 17514 of 2012 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 216 days in filing the review petition is condoned subject to all just exceptions. R.A. No. 545 of 2012 The present application has been filed to seek review of the order passed by this Court on 27.3.2012 when the writ petition was dismissed in terms of the order passed in Tej Pal vs. State of Haryana, C.W.P. No. 17824 of 2006. The said writ petition was dismissed in view of the dismissal of an earlier petition (Om Parkash Yadav and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others) challenging the same acquisition and dismissal of Special Leave Petition against the said order. Though, under the guise of review, the petitioners seek to reargue to matter, thus, not disclosing any error apparent on record. But we have carefully considered number of additional documents filed as well. It was on 20.6.2005, the State published a notification to acquire land measuring 162.40 acres situated in Village Haiderpur, District Gurgaon for development and utilization of land for residential, commercial, institutional and open space for Sector 52A, 53-54 at Gurgaon under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short, the Act). The land of the petitioners measuring 2 bighas 14 biswas was part of the land so intended to be acquired. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5A of the Act on 19.7.2005. Thereafter, the land measuring 134.54 acres was declared to be required for stated public purpose vide notification dated 19.6.2006. The writ petition challenging the acquisition was filed on 25.9.2006. The Land Acquisition Collector has announced award on 22.2.2007. The writ has been dismissed vide the order impugned in the review petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that zonal lay out plan for development of Sectors 52A and 53 was notified on 28.12.2006 and that the substantial portion of the acquired land has been released on 8/14.11.2006, 10.2.2011 and even after the decision of the writ petition on 19.4.2012. Such release of land has been ordered, inter alia, on the recommendations of Ms. Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, former Chief Minister of Punjab and Mr. Moti Lal Vohra, another political personality. Such release of land has been ordered, inter alia, on the recommendations of Ms. Rajinder Kaur Bhattal, former Chief Minister of Punjab and Mr. Moti Lal Vohra, another political personality. It is also pointed out that the land was released though the earlier request for release was declined by the State Government. It is also pointed out that the adjoining land to the land of the petitioners was acquired in the year 1989, as reflected in Annexure P.A/4. But as per the lay out plan approved after the publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the area in question is to be utilized for Fire Station and Banquet Hall for which requirement of land is 8 acres whereas the land acquired in that segment is 18 acres. It is thus argued that the State has acted in totally arbitrary manner showing favouritsm to the selected few. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon an order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported as Rajender Singh vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Others, AIR 2006 SC 75 to contend that the review can be sought on the basis of the documents which were not available on the record at the time of passing of the order. Reference is also made to a judgment reported as Greater Noida Industries Development Authority vs. Devendra Kumar & Others, (2011) 12 SCC 375 that the entire acquisition is colourable exercise of the power and, therefore, not sustainable in law. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and find no merit in the present review petition. The notifications under challenge in the present writ petition were also subject matter of challenge in a writ petition filed by Om Parkash Yadav as mentioned above. The said writ petition was dismissed on 10.9.2007. The land-owners have filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21757 of 2007, which was dismissed on 1.10.2010 when the following order was passed:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are not inclined to interfere in this matter more particularly, as it is the stand of the respondents that the land in question is to be utilised for a public library. We clarify this land will be used for that purpose only not for any other purpose. We are not inclined to interfere in this matter more particularly, as it is the stand of the respondents that the land in question is to be utilised for a public library. We clarify this land will be used for that purpose only not for any other purpose. With this direction, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of." The hearing of the present writ petition was adjourned to await the orders of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and after dismissal of Special Leave Petition by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the writ petition has been dismissed. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that only 2 marlas of land and an abandoned house, was subject matter of acquisition in Om Parkash Yadav's case (supra) whereas in the present case, the challenge is to acquisition inter-alia on the ground that an application for change of land user is pending consideration before the State Government, discriminatory treatment to the landowners and that the land is not required for a public purpose. We do not find that the petitioners can be permitted to seek review of the order by producing additional documents which were not part of the writ petition originally filed and were not before this Court at the time of decision of the writ petition. The order referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners in Rajender Singh's case (supra) is on the basis of the facts of that case where the order was reviewed so as to prevent miscarriage of justice as the Court found that there was an error apparent on record. We also find that the reliance of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on Devendra Kumar's case (supra) is of no assistance to his arguments as a categorical finding was recorded therein that the exercise of power of acquisition is colourable, malafide so as to transfer land after acquisition to the builders. Since, the release of land of the other landowners, as now pleaded in the review was not a ground in the writ petition, we do not find that in review petition, we can examine the said question. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.