Petitioner challenged a land acquisition award on the grounds of alleged non-compliance with the prior approval mandate under Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court dismissed the writ petition for lack of prima facie evidence of such non-compliance and due to delay.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P.No.13519 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.13519 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 02.08.2010
Surender Gupta s/o Duli Chand Gupta
....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others
....Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:Mr.V.K.Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***
Augustine George Masih, J.
This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the award dated 31.7.2009 (Annexure P-10) passed by the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Karnalrespondent No.3 relating to the acquisition of the land of the petitioner situated within the revenue estate of village Uchana, Tehsil and District Karnal being illegal and in breach of the mandatory provisions contained in the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act').
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned award deserves to be set aside on the ground that the Land Acquisition Collector has been mandated under first proviso to Section 11 of the Act to obtain prior approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer, as the appropriate government may authorize in this behalf, before announcing an award under Section 11(1) of the Act. Despite the petitioner seeking information under the Right to Information Act with regard to compliance
C.W.P.No.13519 of 2010
-2-
of this provision, no information has been supplied by the respondents and, therefore, it can be presumed that the prior approval of the appropriate government or such officer authorized in this behalf by the appropriate government has not been obtained or granted by/to the Land Acquisition Collector and, thus, the award impugned herein deserves to be quashed. To buttress his argument the counsel made reference to the judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Chand and others vs. State of Haryana and aother, 2004 (1) PLR 40 wherein it has been held that first proviso to Section 11(1) envisages that no award shall be made by the Collector without the prior approval of the appropriate government or such officer, as the appropriate government may authorize in this behalf and if the Collector makes such an award without prior approval, as mandated, the award would not be in accordance with law.
Counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any document in support of his contention that the prior approval as mandated under proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act has not been obtained by the Land Acquisition Collector.
We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner's land measuring 48 kanals 11 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Uchana, Tehsil & District Karnal, was sought to be acquired along with the land of others by the State of Haryana by issuing notification dated 7.5.2007 under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 whereby 10 acres, 4 kanals and 17 marlas of land was sought to be acquired for expansion and systematic development of tourist complex 'OASIS' in village Uchana, Tehsil &
C.W.P.No.13519 of 2010
-3-
District Karnal. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. On 28.6.2007, he received notice from the Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No.3 for appearance and personal hearing in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector at Karnal. The petitioner appeared and was duly heard; however, the objections as submitted by him were not accepted and no land was released/left out of the acquisition. Declaration dated 9.1.2008 under Section 6 of the Act for an area measuring 10 acres 4 kanals and 17 marlas which included the land of the petitioner was issued followed by issuance of notification dated 8.4.2008 under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing C.W.P.No.8211 of 2008 in this High Court, which was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 23.3.2009 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner laid challenge to the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by preferring SLP No.CC17722 of 2009 which came up for hearing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20.11.2009 but the same was got withdrawn by the petitioner. Thereafter, award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector, Karnal vide order dated 31.7.2009 (Annexure P-10). It is this award which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
The only ground pressed into service by learned Sr. counsel while challenging the award is that the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act has not been complied with and as the same is mandatory, noncompliance of the same would render the award illegal. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be disputed with. In Suresh Chand's case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has also held accordingly. However, there is nothing on record to even suggest that the Land
-4-
C.W.P.No.13519 of 2010
Acquisition Collector, Karnal, had not sought prior approval of the appropriate government or of such officer, authorized in this behalf by the appropriate government to the award proposed to be passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. In absence of any material in support of the contention as raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition, no prima facie case is made out for presuming non-compliance of the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Act. Mere bald statement made by the petitioner is not sufficient to take cognizance thereof and interfere in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner has to prima facie make out a case for interference by this Court by demonstrating the illegality committed by the Authority under the Act while performing its duties or taking action under the Statute. The burden of proof with regard to the assertion made by the petitioner is to be discharged by him, which in the present case, he has failed.
Further, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for challenging the award dated 31.7.2009 after a period of one year, with no explanation to this delay, which itself dissuades this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction at this belated stage especially when the proceedings have attained finality.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
( JASBIR SINGH ) ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE JUDGE August 02, 2010 poonam
Whether referred to Reporters?
Yes/No.
C.W.P.No.13519 of 2010 -5-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether non-compliance of the first proviso to Section 11(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding prior government approval renders the award illegal and entitles the court to interfere.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the award based solely on the petitioner's bald statement without documentary proof of non-compliance.
Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite a one-year delay in filing without explanation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Suresh Chand and others vs. State of Haryana and aother, 2004 (1) PLR 40Referred¶19
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surender Gupta
State of Haryana
Jasbir Singh
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
