Dismissed

Mahavir Singh etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jan 2012CWP/798/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, who purchased land after its notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, challenged the delayed announcement of the award based on prolonged stay and vendor litigation. The Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that purchasers cannot challenge acquisition initiated prior to their purchase. The Court also rejected arguments based on a No Objection Certificate granted under a

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed in limine.

Mahavir Singh etc. Vs State of Haryana etc. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 798 of 2012 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.798 of 2012 Date of decision:- 13.01.2012

¶4

Mahavir Singh and others

¶5

....Petitioners

¶6

Vs.

¶7

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. N.D. Achint, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶12

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the notifications dated 16.12.1988 and 14.12.1989 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') respectively and the award dated 04.07.2011, inter alia, on the ground that the award has been announced after a lapse of more than 20 years of declaration of notification under Section 6 of the Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are purchasers of the land after publication of notification under Section 6 of the Act after no objection certificate was granted by respondent No.4. The petitioners made a represntation to respondents Nos.2 and 3 to provide passage to the land purchased. The petitioners filed a writ petition in which a direction was issued for deciding the representation. During the pendency of contempt petition, road measuring 3 meters was provided on the condition of payment of market price. The petitioners have deposited substantial amount to Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation to have access to this land. It is, thus, contended that the land in dispute cannot

¶14

Civil Writ Petition No. 798 of 2012 2

¶15

be acquired at this stage.

¶16

A perusal of the award (Annexure P-19) shows that number of writ petitions were filed challenging the said acquisition and there was an order of stay. Such writ petitioners were dismissed on 17.03.2011 and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector has proceeded ahead to announce the award. In fact, one of the co-owners of the petitioners namely Partap Singh has also filed a writ petition (CWP No. 3610 of 1990), which was dismissed along with other writ petitions.

¶17

The petitioners are purchasers of the land after notification under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioners is against their vendor and not against the State. The purchase of the land by the petitioners will not affect the right of the State in acquisition of the land under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. In view of the order of stay in the earlier writ petitions (including the order of stay in a petition filed by the co-owner of the petitioners), the period during which stay remained operative, has to be excluded. Thus, we do not find any merit in the argument raised that after purchase, the petitioners have any better right or the award cannot be announced. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana & others (SLP (Civil) No.33172 of 2011 decided on 12.12.2011) came heavily against the purchasers challenging acquisition. It observed as under:

¶18

“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

¶19

Civil Writ Petition No. 798 of 2012 3

¶20

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.”

¶21

The argument of the petitioners is based on such 'no objection certificate' granted vide Annexure P-7 dated 23.12.2005. The petitioners claimed that after granting of 'no objection certificate' by the authority, the land of the petitioners cannot be acquired. We do not find any merit in the said argument. The 'no objection certificate' was granted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 for selling of the land for the purpose of agriculture activities. Such 'no objection certificate' cannot be used by the petitioners to scuttle the acquisition proceedings, initiated much prior to the 'no objection certificate'. The certificate has been applied for and granted independent of acquisition proceedings under a different statute.

¶22

In view of the said fact, we do not find any illegality in the announcing of the award on 04.07.2011, which may warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of this court.

¶23

Dismissed in limine .

¶24

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 13.01.2012 (A.N. JINDAL) Vimal/ajp JUDGE

Mahavir Singh etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahavir Singh etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

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

R.K. Dyeing Industry Vs Uhbvn Ltd. and Others

M/S Harpal Singh Pradeep Kumar Vs Hry. State Agricultural Marketing Board & Ors.

Malkit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pb. State Indus. Development Corp. Vs Appellate Authority for Indus. & Financial

Kewal Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sehdev Arya and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.