Dismissed

Dhram Pal and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2013CWP/10598/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged land acquisition notifications and award alleging fraud. The court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the issue was already finally decided in a coordinate writ petition (CWP No. 4242/2013) regarding the same parties and allegations, barring the second petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

Dhram Pal and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.10598 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.10598 of 2013 Date of decision:16.05.2013

¶5

Dharam Pal & others .....Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana & others

¶8

......Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶10

Present: Mr.Satinder S.Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

G.S.Sandhawalia J.

¶13

Challenge in the present writ petition is to the notifications issued under Section 4 dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P-4) & Section 6 dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-6) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the 'Act') and also the award dated 09.12.2009 (Annexure P-7). Further prayer has also been made to restore the land of the petitioner on the ground that it had been fraudulently acquired.

¶14

The pleaded case of the petitioners is that they are in actual physical possession of the land measuring 23 kanals 18 marlas situated in village Para Tehsil & District Rohtak which was sought to be acquired vide the above-said notifications. The petitioners had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act pleading that the land was fertile and only infertile land could be acquired for the implementation of the scheme and the land was costly and situated between Rohtak-Sonepat road on one side and the Rohtak-Panipat railway-line on the other side. The land is situated near the by-pass and the right of livelihood was being extinguished for the sake of other persons. The land occupied by Sun City had already been released. The petitioners' objections were rejected without proper application of mind and Section 6 notification dated 14.12.2007 was

CWP No.10598 of 2013

issued.

The petitioners challenged the said acquisition by filing CWP No.1628 of 2010 titled Dharampal & others Vs. State of Haryana & others before this Court besides other landowners in which replies were filed and vide order dated 20.07.2010, six questions were posed to the State of Haryana which were to be answered regarding the issue of discrimination at the hands of a developer namely M/s Sharad Farms & Holdings Pvt. Ltd.-respondent No.5 in CWP No.17072 of 2009 titled Tejvir Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others . The respondents had not made a proper disclosure and had filed affidavit dated 27.09.2010. The Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.09.2010, dismissed the said writ petition. The writ petition, i.e., CWP No.1628 of 2010, filed by the petitioners was also dismissed in view of the said decision. Thereafter, the petitioners filed SLP (C) CC No.22487 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed on 03.02.2012. The petitioners, thereafter, having no alternative took compensation with regard to the land measuring 23 kanals 18 marlas. The present writ petition has been filed on the ground that fraud had been committed by the State in active connivance with the builders and colonizers and reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patasi Devi Vs. State of Haryana & others (2012) 9 SCC 503 was made. It was, accordingly, pleaded that the petitioners were willing to refund the compensation taken by them within a reasonable period in case this Court was pleased to release the land from acquisition.

¶19

The matter is no longer res integra. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No.4242 of 2013 titled Tejvir Singh Vs. State of Haryana & others decided on 27.02.2013. This Court noticed the observations made on 29.09.2010 by a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court whereby the case of Tejvir Singh was decided earlier on 29.09.2010 and after

¶20

¶21

CWP No.10598 of 2013

¶22

taking into consideration the six questions which had been posed to the State of Haryana, the writ petition had been dismissed. The SLPs had, thereafter, been dismissed on 28.01.2011. Thereafter, Tejvir Singh approached this Court trying to rake up the issue again and it was held that neither the second writ petition was maintainable on the same set of allegations nor could fresh issue be raised inter se between the parties by filing a second writ petition. The observations made by this Court read as under:

¶23

“5. From the above-said order, it would be clear that the issues which the petitioner is now raising were raised earlier in the said writ petition also which were specifically rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 29.09.2010. The petitioners filed special leave petition against the said order which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 28.01.2011. The petitioner, in the guise of the present writ petition, is now seeking to reopen the judgment of the Division Bench which has now attained finality and allege the ground of fraud and that the land was released to respondent No.5 illegally. This cannot be permitted once the litigation has become final qua the parties.

¶24

xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶25

In the present case, on earlier occasion, it was demonstrated before this Court that respondent No.5 had already applied for grant of licence under the 1975 Act on 13.11.2006 for 104.56 acres of land and on 10.08.2009 for an area measuring 63.69 acres for the purpose of developing an integrated residential plotted colony in the revenue estate of villages Para and Bohar falling in Sectors No.34 & 36, Rohtak. The said respondent No.5 was land-owner prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 on 15.12.2006. The Co-ordinate Bench was satisfied with the explanation and had dismissed the writ petition.

¶26

xxxx xxxx xxxx

¶27

Thus, for the reasons recorded above, we are unable to accept the submissions of counsel for the petitioner that a second petition is maintainable on the same set of allegations or some fresh issues can be raised inter se between the same parties, subsequently, by filing second writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed in limine.”

¶28

CWP No.10598 of 2013

¶29

¶30