Dismissed

Kewal Krishan v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2012CWP/11480/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed this writ petition wherein the petitioner, a purchaser of acquired land, sought allotment of a replacement plot based on a prior decision. The Court held that a purchaser has no right to challenge the acquisition or claim a plot due to the doctrine that purchasing acquired land implies purchasing litigation, and the petition was barred by gross delay.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Kewal Krishan Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No.11480 of 2011 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.11480 of 2011 Date of decision:- 23.01.2012

Kewal Krishan

....Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for rrespondent No.1. Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶11

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶12

The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming a writ of mandamus for the release of 5 Marlas land in terms of the decision rendered by this Court on 07.07.2010 in CWP No.3707 of 1991 titled “Bhupinder Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others” .

¶13

The petitioner purchased the land measuring 7 Marlas vide two registered sale deeds dated 14.12.1983 comprised in Khewat No.367, Khatauni No.433, Khasra Nos.12//15/6/3 (1-0), 15/11 (0-6). The said land was subject matter of acquisition by way of a notification dated 15.12.1982 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). Notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on 23.02.1985. After the notification under Section 6 of the Act, the award was announced on 25.05.1985. The award for the superstructures was announced on 15.08.1987.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that the similarly situated persons, whose land was also acquired, have been ordered to be allotted

¶15

Civil Writ Petition No.11480 of 2011 2

¶16

5 Marlas of plot in Bhupinder Singh's case (supra). Therfore, on the parity of the said case, the petitioner is entitled to 5 Marlas of plot.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The petitioner has purchased the land after notification under Section 4 of the Act was published. The award was passed way-back on 25.05.1985. The present writ petiiton filed on 05.07.2011 i.e. after a delay of 26 years, suffers from gross delay and latches.

¶18

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that, in fact, the petitioner filed an application in the aforesaid writ petition i.e. CWP No.3707 of 1991 in the year 2004 and the said application was ordered to be heard alongwith main petition. But no orders were passed on such application while deciding the aforesaid writ petition.

¶19

Though the petiitoner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court initially by filing a miscellaneous application in the year 2004, but the fact remains that the petitioner approached this Court even by way of miscellaneous application after more than 19 years.

¶20

The Hon'ble Supreme in M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & others (SLP (Civil) No.33172 of 2011 decided on 12.12.2011) has held that a purchaser has no right to challenge the acquisition. It observed as under:

¶21

“We have considered the arguments/submissions of the learned counsel, but have not felt impressed. In our view, the High Court did not commit any error by non-suiting the petitioner on the ground that being a purchaser of the acquired land, it did not have the locus to prosecute the challenge thrown by its vendor M/s Ashoka Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. to the acquisition of land. The proposition that the purchaser

¶22

Civil Writ Petition No.11480 of 2011 3

¶23

of the acquired land does not have the right to question the acqusition proceedings is well-settled. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the judgments in U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Kalra Properties (1996) 3 SCC 124 , Ajay Krishan Shinghal Vs. Union of India (1996) 10 SCC 721 , Star Wire (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698 and Meera Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi (2008) 9 SCC 177 . As a matter of fact, by purchasing the acquired land, the petitioner had purchased litigation with the hope that it will be able to manipulate the State apparatus and secure release of the acquired land. Such a litigant is not entitled to relief either under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution.”

¶24

Since the petitioner has no right to challenge the acquisition, therefore, as a consequence thereof, the petitioner has no right to allotment of a plot as well on account of acquisition of land.

¶25

Dismissed.

¶26

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶27

23.01.2012 (A.N. JINDAL) Vimal JUDGE

Kewal Krishan v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kewal Krishan v. State of Haryana & Ors.

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

Shinder Singh and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Hisar Ex. Naval Personnel Welfare Society Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Jai Bhagwan Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.

M/S Gdpa Fasterners & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Krishan Lal Vaid Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Rakha Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.