Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3358 (PNJ)

Subhash v. State of Haryana

2016-12-02

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, SNEH PRASHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Through the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.3 rejecting their claim. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to make allotment of commercial plot/booths to the petitioners according to their entitlement against the acquired land measuring more than 8 kanals and as per the policy dated 21.8.2015 (Annexure P-8). 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition as narrated therein may be noticed. The petitioners and their co-sharers were owners of the land measuring 17 kanal 3 marlas as per their respective shares as is discernible from the notice dated 24.12.2005 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”). Government of Haryana vide notification dated 1.4.2004 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 29.3.2005 (Annexure P-3) under Section 6 of the Act acquired the said land. The award was passed on 13.1.2006. The amount of compensation was awarded to the petitioners/landowners. In the year 1987, the Government of Haryana framed a policy for the allotment of plot/commercial site/shops to the landowners whose land was acquired by the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). Another policy dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-4) was framed for allotment of residential plots/commercial booths/shops to the landowners whose land had been acquired on or after 7.9.2010. The land of the petitioners and other land owners was acquired vide award dated 13.1.2006 and a bunch of cases regarding allotment of plots to the oustees was decided by this Court vide order dated 25.4.2012 (Annexure P-5) in LPA No. 2096 of 2011. Thereafter, some of the landowners filed various writ petitions including CWP No. 16853 of 2014 and this Court vide order dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure P-6) directed the Board to consider the claim of the oustees keeping in view the mandate given by this Court in LPA No. 2096 of 2011. Thereafter, some of the landowners filed various writ petitions including CWP No. 16853 of 2014 and this Court vide order dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure P-6) directed the Board to consider the claim of the oustees keeping in view the mandate given by this Court in LPA No. 2096 of 2011. When no action was taken thereon, the petitioners served a legal notice dated 28.5.2015 (Annexure P-7) upon respondents No.2 and 3 for the allotment of commercial site/shops under oustees category as per their entitlement against their acquired land in Pillu Khera, Anaj Mandi. In pursuance to the order, Annexure P-6, the Board framed a policy dated 21.8.2015 (Annexure P-8) extending the benefit of oustees policy to the landowners whose land was acquired on or after 21.7.1997. Respondent No.3 vide order dated 30.10.2015 (Annexure P-9) informed the petitioners that their claim had been rejected due to non-fulfiling the terms and conditions of the policy, Annexure P-8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed CWP No. 3363 of 2016 and this Court vide order dated 19.2.2016 set aside the order, Annexure P-9, passed by respondent No.3 and directed the respondents to consider their claim and if they are found entitled to the allotment of plot under oustees quota, then they would also pass the consequential orders. When the respondents did not consider their claim, the petitioners filed COCP No. 2093 of 2016 which is still pending adjudication in this Court. In pursuance to the order, Annexure P-10, respondent No.3 vide order dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure P-11) rejected the claim of the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. 4. As per Condition (b) of the policy dated 21.8.2015 (Annexure P-8), only such oustees shall be eligible for the allotment of booth/plots whose one acre or more land had been acquired and shall be allotted booth/plots not through the draw of lots but on the basis of a seniority list drawn as per the quantum of their land acquired for the establishment of New Mandi/Marketing Yard. The seniority list would be so drawn that a person giving more land would be senior and the allotment shall be made from senior most downwards. The seniority list would be so drawn that a person giving more land would be senior and the allotment shall be made from senior most downwards. Condition (b) of the Policy reads thus:- “(b) The Oustees/land owners shall be allotted booth/plots not through the draw of lots but on the basis of a seniority list drawn as per the quantum of their land acquired for the establishment of New Mandi/Marketing Yard. Only such oustees shall be eligible for allotment of booth/lots whose one acre or more land has been acquired. The seniority list would be so drawn that a person giving more land would be senior and the allotment shall be made from senior most downwards.” 5. The request of the petitioners for the allotment of booth in terms of the policy, Annexure P-8, was rejected on the ground that their respective shares of land so acquired were far below one acre. The land of the petitioners measuring 17 kanal 3 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Pillukhera was acquired. Respondent No.3 has noticed that as per the jamabandies for the years 1997-98 and 2002-03 of village Pillukhera, S/Shri Bhim Singh, Rattan Singh, Smt. Nandro Devi and Om Pati were owners in equal shares of the land measuring 17 kanal 3 malras to the extent of 1/4th share each which comes to only 4 kanal 5¾ marlas in acquired land. Similarly S/Shri Subhash and Krishan Kumar jointly and Smt. Nandro Devi did not exceed their share beyond 4 kanal 5¾ marlas. Respondent No.3 while rejecting the claim of the petitioners had recorded as under:- “(a) Notice U/S 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by Haryana Govt. vide notification dated 1.4.2004. Subsequent notification U/S 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 29.3.2005 and the Award of same was announced on 13.1.2006 as mentioned in para 3 of the contempt petition itself. (b) The land comprising in Khasra No. 45//2(8-0), 9/1, 10/1/1 (4-5) total measuring 17 Kanal 3 Marlas situated in revenue estate of Village Pillukhera (Tehsil Pillukhera) of the petitioners had been acquired. The specific number of the land (particulars) have been furnished by the Petitioners in para No.2 of the Contempt Petition. (b) The land comprising in Khasra No. 45//2(8-0), 9/1, 10/1/1 (4-5) total measuring 17 Kanal 3 Marlas situated in revenue estate of Village Pillukhera (Tehsil Pillukhera) of the petitioners had been acquired. The specific number of the land (particulars) have been furnished by the Petitioners in para No.2 of the Contempt Petition. (c) The Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 and 2002-03 of village Pillukhera (Tehsil Pillukhera) also shows that S/Shri Bhim Singh, Rattan Singh, Smt. Nandro Devi and Om Pati were owners in equal shares of the aforesaid 17K 3 Marlas of the land. In this manner, Shri Bhim Singh and Smt. Nandro Devi were owners of only 1/4th share each out of 17K 3M. Their share comes to only 4K 5¾ Marlas in the land which was acquired under Land Acquisition Act. (d) That the share of S/Shri Subhash and Krishan Kumar ss/o Shri Bhim Singh jointly did not exceed beyond 4K 5¾ Marlas. Likewise share of Smt. Nandro Devi too did not exceed beyond 4K 5¾ Marlas. (e) That from the aforesaid documentary evidence on record it was apparent that land of each of the petitioners thus acquired was far below One Acre (8 Kanal). (f) It had been laid down under condition No. (b) of the Government Policy dated 21.8.2015 that “only such oustees shall be eligible for allotment of booth/plots whose one acre or more land has been acquired.” Thus only those land owners were eligible for allotment of booth whose one Acre or more land had been acquired. (g) That none of the above persons qualify for allotment of booth because their respective share of land so acquired was far below one Acre. Hence, they were not covered by criteria laid down in the Policy for the allotment of booth. In the light of aforesaid undisputed facts, the request made by the petitioners for allotment of booth under oustee quota in terms of Haryana Government Policy dated 21.8.2015 on account of acquisition of their land vide Notification No. 729 Arl. S (3)-2004/6305 dated 1.4.2004 published in Haryana Govt. Gazette dated 1.4.2004 U/S 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1984) is hereby rejected.” 6. In view of the above, the land of each of the petitioners, thus, acquired was far below one acre. S (3)-2004/6305 dated 1.4.2004 published in Haryana Govt. Gazette dated 1.4.2004 U/S 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1984) is hereby rejected.” 6. In view of the above, the land of each of the petitioners, thus, acquired was far below one acre. Therefore, in terms of Clause (b) of the policy dated 21.8.2015 (Annexure P-8), the petitioners were not entitled to the allotment of booth as their acquired land was less than one acre and respondent No.3 has rightly rejecting their claim. Nothing has been shown that the order dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.3 suffers from any illegality or perversity. 7. Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed.