Partly allowed

Jagan Nath v. State of Hy.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Nov 2011CWP/3576/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court partially allowed the writ petition for quashing notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, directing the State to release Class C construction area and a proportionate area after a hearing-based calculation, while upholding the notifications for the remaining land.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release constructed area and proportionate area from acquisition after calculating the formula following an opportunity of hearing.

Jagan Nath Vs State of Hy. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No.3576 of 1991

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.3576 of 1991 Date of Decision: 02.11.2011

Pt. Jagan Nath

..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

..... Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA

¶11

Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents.

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.

¶16

The petitioner, Jagan Nath had brought this petition in 1991 challenging acquisition proceedings of his ancestral land in which there was his homestead consisting of two pucca rooms, two sheds, an animal shed and one chappar. The acquisition proceedings were initiated vide notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') dated 10.06.1988 followed by the declaratory notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 07.06.1989. The land of the petitioner comprised khewat No.58/64, killa No.86/3(8-0), khewat No.613/829, killa No.78/26(18), khewat No.903/1182, killa No.78/18(8-0), 23/1(7-8), 24/1(0-11) situated at Jharsently, Teh.Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad.

¶17

His name was recorded in the Jamabandi of 1986-87 as owner. Besides the residential part there was an orchard and agricultural land as well. The public purpose for which the acquisition was initiated by HUDA

¶18

CWP No.3576 of 1991

¶19

-2-

¶20

for Sector-59, Faridabad was for development and utilization of land as industrial area. Against the acquisition, the petitioner filed objections under Section 5A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector, Faridabad. The petitioner admits that there was compliance of the requirement of publication in the Gazettee and in two newspapers. His objection under Section 5A did not merit consideration according to the acquiring department and the Section 6 notification came to be issued as referred to above.

¶21

Against the impugned proceedings, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution praying for quashing of the impugned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act.

¶22

This Court vide order dated 08.03.1991 issued notice of motion of the writ to the respondents for 19.04.1991 and in the meanwhile, dispossession of the petitioner from the land was stayed. The interim order continues to run.

¶23

On notice of motion having been issued, the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana filed written statement dated 25.01.1993 on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It was stated that the property of land owners which could be adjusted as per the planning had already been left out from the acquisition proceedings before making declaration under Section 6 of the Act and, therefore, it could be said that the petitioner's land cannot be released from acquisition and he was shown the door of Section 18 of the Act for claiming just and adequate compensation for the acquired land with constructions thereon. It is not disputed that constructions existed prior to the Section 4 notification. In Para 3 of the written statement on

¶24

CWP No.3576 of 1991

¶25

-3-

¶26

merits, it was admitted that the rooms, sheds and chappar and one animal shed existed but that they were of Class 'C' construction and as such no poor quality construction could be adjusted in the layout plan of the sector in question. In the circumstances, it was contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. It may be appropriate to mention that the present matter was put up before the Lok Adalat of this Court. The Lok Adalat vide order dated 27.04.2001 had proposed dismissal of the writ petition on account of the then policy of the State Government that only A Class constructions could be released from acquisition. The petitioner not being satisfied with the proposed order of the Lok Adalat prayed for decision on merits. That is how this matter has come before this Court for final hearing.

¶27

We have heard Mr Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana for the respondentState.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the same acquisition, some factories like M/s. Jetindera Steel, M/s. United Oil Mills etc. have been left out of the same acquisition and therefore there is also discrimination looming large in the present case. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, reported as (2001) 7 S.C.C. 545 , which smudges the distinction between A, B and C Class constructions and, therefore, the stand of the respondent-State based on the assumption that Class C construction was not saved is now incorrect. C Class constructions also deserve to be saved which are being used for residential purposes together with proportionate area equivalent to the constructed area for beneficial use of

¶29

CWP No.3576 of 1991

¶30

-4-

¶31

the constructed area.

¶32

On the strength of these arguments, it is submitted that the respondents ought to be directed to release the constructed area and proportionate area equivalent to the constructed area from acquisition.

¶33

Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana was at pains to distinguish the judgment supra both on law and facts. 10. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the writ petition deserves to be partially allowed and a direction to the respondent-State deserves to be issued to release from acquisition the constructed area as it is existed at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 and to add a proportionate area equivalent to the constructed area as on the date of the notification under Section 4. The respondents would now calculate the area to be released after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner so that no dispute remains on the formula applied for partial release. Beyond that protection, the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 are upheld. The process of calculation of constructed land and proportionate area be finalized within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner is free now to pursue his remedies qua just and adequate compensation for the remaining land in accordance with law if not already determined.

¶34

The writ petition is partially allowed in the above terms. No costs.

¶35

(M.M. KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

¶36

02.11.2011 manju

Jagan Nath v. State of Hy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagan Nath v. State of Hy.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rameshwar Vs the Director, Pgi and Anr.

State of Haryana Vs Sukhvinder Kaur and Anr.

Ajit Singh Vs the Jalandhar Improvement Trust & Ors.

Manjit Singh Vs Land Acquisition Tribunal etc.

Suresh Chand & Ors. Vs the Jalandhar Improvement Trust