Allowed

Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Dec 2013CWP/12447/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a public interest matter, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed authorities to re-survey the petitioner's acquired land. If the house does not fall within a road alignment, it must be released, relying on state policy and Supreme Court precedent protecting pre-notification structures.

What did the court decide?

Ordered respondents to re-survey the area after notice; if the house is not on a road alignment, it shall be released within three months.

Lajpat Rai Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 12447 of 1996 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.12.2013

¶3

Lajpat Rai Khurana

¶4

.......... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana & others

¶7

...... Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶10

Present : Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. S.S. Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶12

¶13

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶17

The petitioner impugns the notifications dated 2.3.1993 and 1.3.1994 (Annexures P-3 & P-5) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of Killa No. 36/24 ( 1K-10M) and 36/25 (0K-10M), where the petitioner is said to have constructed a residential house.

¶18

The acquisition is impugned on the limited ground that the residential house of the petitioner deserves to be released unless it obstructs the construction/execution of some vital public utility.

¶19

It was, thus, in this backdrop that the following order was passed on 4.2.1998 :-

¶20

¶21

Satyawan 2014.01.10 10:02 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶22

CWP No. 12447 of 1996

¶23

¶24

released. Learned counsel appearing for HUDA undertakes to supply a copy of the complete sector plan to the learned counsel for the petitioner within two weeks. He also states that an affidavit of the officer concerned shall be filed indicating therein whether the house of the petitioner falls in the sector road or not. Adjourned to 11.3.1998 for further proceedings.”

¶25

There can indeed be no dispute that in view of the policy

¶26

decision dated 26.10.2007 taken by the State Government during the pendency of this writ petition and as modified on 24.1.2011, the structures/houses which were found in existence at the time of issuance of Section 4 Notification deserve to be released from acquisition. The relevant extract of the policy dated 26.10.2007, read as follows:-

¶27

“The Government has framed a comprehensive policy as detailed below:-

¶28

1) No request will be considered after one year of award. Only those requests will be considered by the Government where objections under Section 5-A were filed.

¶29

2) Any request or application where structures have been constructed will only be considered for the release under Section 48 (1) provided the structure exists prior to section 4 and is inhabited.

¶30

3) Any factory or commercial establishment which existed prior to Section 4 will be considered for release.

¶31

4) Any religious institution or any building owned by community will also be considered for release.

¶32

5) xx xx xx xx 6) xx xx xx xx” (emphasis applied)

¶33

The afore-stated policy has been modified on 24.1.2011 but the

¶34

¶35

Satyawan 2014.01.10 10:02 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶36

CWP No. 12447 of 1996

¶37

¶38

modified version has no direct bearing on the point in issue.

¶39

The enforceability of these policy decisions is also no longer res integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patasi Devi versus State of Haryana and others, (2012) 9 SCC 503 has ruled as follows:-

¶40

“19. Before this Court it has been pleaded that on the date of issuance of preliminary notification the appellant's land was vacant, but, this statement cannot be relied upon for denying relief to her because no such averment was made in the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court. The policy framed by the Government of Haryana clearly stipulates release of the land on which construction had been raised prior to issuance of Section 4 notification. The appellant's case is covered by that policy. Therefore, her land ought to have been released as was done in the case of M/s Sharad Farm and Holdings (P) Ltd......”

¶41

(emphasis applied) -

¶42

The only exception made to the above-stated policy is in those cases where the structure is required to be dismantled/demolished for providing some public utility like sector road, water supply, sewerage etc.

¶43

In the instant case the petitioner himself was fair enough when he made the following statement on 4.2.1998 :-

¶44

“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in case the house of the petitioner falls in the sector road, the present writ petition may be dismissed, but if the same is found to be otherwise, the authorities should consider the house for being released. Learned counsel appearing for HUDA undertakes to supply a copy of the complete sector plan to the learned counsel for the petitioner within two weeks. He also states that an affidavit of the officer concerned shall be filed indicating

¶45

Satyawan 2014.01.10 10:02 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

¶46

CWP No. 12447 of 1996

¶47

¶48

therein whether the house of the petitioner falls in the sector road or not. Adjourned to 11.3.1998 for further proceedings.”

¶49

It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the acquired house is not needed for the purpose of any road etc.

¶50

In view of the above, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to re-survey/re-demarcate the area after advance notice to the petitioner and if it is found that the house of the petitioner does not fall within the alignment of any public road, the same shall be released. An appropriate order in this regard shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶51

(SURYA KANT)

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

02.12.2013 (SURINDER GUPTA) 'Satyawan' JUDGE

¶54

'Satyawan'

¶55

Satyawan 2014.01.10 10:02 "I attested to the accuracy and integrity of this document" High Court Chandigarh

Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lajpat Rai v. State of Haryana and 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

Jaswinder Pal Kaur & Anr. Vs Improvement Trust Moga & Anr.

Suresh Chander Vs the Improvement Trust

Jai Gopal Vs the Improvement Trust,Khanna

M/S Vishwakarma Sewing Machine Industries, Bassi Pathana Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bharat Bhushan Vs Chairman and Ors.

Noor City Vs State of Punjab and Ors.