Dismissed

Kunti & Os v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 May 2010CWP/15488/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging a land acquisition notification in Faridabad. While the Court noted partial exemptions were granted for structures outside green belts, it held that claims involving new land parcels barred under principles of delay and laches as the claimants were either not part of prior proceedings or the land had already vested with the State.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kunti & Os Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Date of Decision: May 11, 2010

¶3

1. C.W.P. No. 15144 of 2008

¶4

Ishwar Singh and others

¶5

…Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

2. C.W.P. No. 15488 of 2008

Kunti and others

…Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶14

…Respondents

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶16

Present: Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate, (in CWP No. 15144 of 2008) Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, (in CWP No. 15488 of 2008) for the petitioners.

¶17

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents.

¶18

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶19

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶20

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶21

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 15144 and 15488 of 2008 because both the petitions are directed against the same notifications concerning acquisition of land and involving similar grounds of challenge.

¶22

It has remained undisputed that a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’)

¶23

C.W.P. Nos. 15144 & 15488 of 2008

¶24

was issued on 22.5.1995 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 10.5.1996. The public purpose specified in the notification as well as in the declaration under Sections 4 and 6 is development and utilisation of land as institutional, residential and commercial Sector 65, Faridabad. Majority of the petitioners challenged the acquisition by filing petitions earlier, namely, CWP Nos. 7205 and 7206 of 1998. The aforesaid petitions were disposed of on 4.1.2001 by a Division Bench of this Court by recording an agreed order because the respondent State of Haryana had taken the stand that wherever the land could be exempted from acquisition it had already been exempted and the matter could be re-examined for the satisfaction of the petitioners. Accordingly, the following directions on the basis of consensus reached between the parties were issued:-

¶25

“ In view of the above consensus arrived at between the counsel for the parties and without going into the merits, we dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:-

¶26

i) The petitioners may, if so advised, file separate representation on or before February 12, 2001.

¶27

ii) The representations shall be supported by such evidence as the petitioners may wish to reply (rely?) upon. To illustrate, if any of the petitioners has erected a building prior to the issue of the notification under Section

¶28

¶29

C.W.P. Nos. 15144 & 15488 of 2008

¶30

4, he will be entitled to adduce the evidence in support of his claim alongwith the representation.

¶31

iii) The representations shall be considered by the Secretary, Department of Urban Estates, Government of Haryana, personally. He will decide the representations in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. The representations shall be expeditiously disposed of. The final decision shall be communicated to the petitioners.

¶32

iv) The petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in their possession for a period of two weeks after the final order is passed. In case, the petitioners are aggrieved by the final order, they would be entitled to seek their remedy in accordance with law.”

¶33

The Director, Urban Estates Department Haryana, on 13.5.2002 had taken the decision that the land/construction of the petitioners who had filed CWP No. 7206 of 1998 could not be released as some constructions were falling in the service road/green belt. Accordingly, their representation was rejected. The respondents has also contradicted the claim of the petitioners because in CWP No. 7206 of 1998 only following khasra numbers were involved:-

¶34

¶35

C.W.P. Nos. 15144 & 15488 of 2008

¶36

“Khasra No. 25/2/2, 25min of Rectangle No. 6, Khasra No. 5/2/2/2/2, 15/1, 15/1/1/2, 16/2/2, 25/1/1 of Rectangle No. 9, 11/1 of Rectangle No. 15, 15/1/1, 15/2/1, 15/2/2 of Rectangle No. 16, situated in the revenue estate of Sahupura, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad.”

¶37

However, the petitioners have claimed new khasra numbers in addition to the aforesaid land, which was subject matter of dispute in CWP No. 7206 of 1998, namely, Khasra Nos. 9//3, 4/1/1, 4/1/2, 4/1/4, 4/1/5, 4/1/6, 4/1/7, 4/1/8, 4/1/10, 4/1/11, 6/2/2, 7, 8/1/1 and 14. Accordingly, it has been urged that the land claimed in CWP No. 7206 of 1998 pertained to Sector 65, Faridabad, whereas the aforesaid new khasra numbers as claimed by the petitioners pertains to Sector 62, Faridabad. Thus, it has been submitted that in respect of the aforesaid khasra numbers, which have been disputed for the first time in these petitions, no consideration could take place as it would suffer from delay and laches.

¶38

It has further been pointed out that the petitioners whose land is covered by Sector 65, were given notices for announcement of award and the award was announced on 3.1.2005. The possession of the land has been taken over on 3.1.2005. It has been clarified that petitioner No. 3 in CWP No. 15488 of 2008 was not the writ petitioner in CWP No. 7205 or 7206 of 1998 although his land/construction falls outside the road and, therefore, no relief could be granted at this belated stage as the land free from all encumbrances vests in the State.

¶39

¶40

C.W.P. Nos. 15144 & 15488 of 2008

¶41

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, we are of the view that whichever portion of the land/construction was capable of exemption from acquisition has been released. The land which covers the green belt or the service road could not be released. In respect of certain petitioners and their claim with regard to other pieces of land, the plea of delay and laches has been rightly pleaded because after award and taking of possession, the land/construction has vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Some of the petitioners were not even party to the earlier petitions, namely, CWP Nos. 7205 and 7206 of 1998. We find no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.

¶42

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

¶43

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶44

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 11, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor

¶45

Kunti & Os v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kunti & Os v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Naresh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ishwar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jagram Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Darshan Pal Vs Union of India and Ors.