Dismissed

M/S N.C.J. Estate Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2013CWP/14064/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a land acquisition for the National Defence University. The court held that the petitioner received a proper opportunity of hearing under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, distinguishing prior precedents where such hearings were absent.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the notifications dated 21.1.2011 and 12.1.2012 under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was dismissed finding no violation of Section 5-A.

M/S N.C.J. Estate Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.14064 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.14064 of 2012(O&M) Date of decision: 06.05.2013

¶5

M/s N.C.J. Estate Solutions Pvt. Limited

¶6

-----Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA

¶11

Present:Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.

¶14

Challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the notifications dated 21.1.2011 and 12.1.2012 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “the Act”), Annexures P.1 and P.3 respectively, whereby land of the petitioner alongwith others has been acquired by the State of Haryana.

¶15

A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioner is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was owner in possession of land bearing Rect.No.25, Killa Nos.23/3/2 (20), 24/2/2 (7-8), 25(8-0), Rect.No.26, Killa No.21 (8-0), 22 (8-0), 23/1 (6-13), Rect.No.32, Killa No.1/1 (2-11), 2/1 (0-18), Rect.No.33, Killa No.4/1 (6-13), 5/1 (4-7), 5/2 (2-13), measuring 57 kanals 5 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Binola, District Gurgaon, which was purchased by it much prior to the issuance of

¶16

CWP No.14064 of 2012

¶17

¶18

impugned notifications. The land of the petitioner was agricultural and chahi in nature. On 21.1.2011, notification, Annexure P.1 under Section 4 of the Act was issued for acquiring land of the petitioner alongwith other lands for public purpose, namely, for development and utilization of land for National Defence University. On 16.2.2011, Annexure P.2, the petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Although the petitioner was called for hearing but no opportunity was granted as the Land Acquisition Collector was not even present at the time of hearing of the objections. Presence of the petitioner was recorded by clerical staff present there and it was asked to submit some statement. On 12.1.2012, notification, Annexure P.3 under Section 6 of the Act was issued. According to the petitioner, acquisition of its land is in violation of the letter dated 5.3.1982, Annexure P.6 issued by the Government of India and the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana, Annexures P.7 and P.8. Aggrieved by the action of the Government in acquiring the land of the petitioner, it is before this Court through the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no hearing as required under Section 5-A of the Act for deciding the objections filed by the land owners was provided to the petitioner. It was argued that the report of the Land Acquisition Collector does not deal with the objections. Reliance was placed upon judgments in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Darius Shapur Chenai and others, (2005) 7 SCC 627, Kamal Trading Private Limited v. State of West Bengal and others , (2012) 2 SCC 25 and Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana and others, (2012) 1

¶19

CWP No.14064 of 2012

¶20

¶21

SCC 792 in support of the submissions. It was also urged that there was substantial land near the land of the petitioner which was cheaper and suitable for the purpose of acquisition and was available and in such circumstances, acquisition of the petitioner's land was unwarranted.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the acquisition and contended that the land was required for a prestigious project i.e. for establishment of National Defence University and the procedure as prescribed under the Act was followed. The plea that no hearing was provided to the landowners under Section 5-A of the Act was controverted. It was submitted that during the course of hearing, the petitioner got recorded its statement wherein it stated that the objections under Section 5-A of the Act be treated as its statement. On the basis of the averments made in para 6 of the reply on merits filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it was stated that opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner vide notice dated 14.6.2011 and the petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 – District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector for hearing on 30.6.2011. Reference was made to following averments made in the reply of respondent No.2 which reads thus:-

¶23

“6. That the contents of para No.6 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. It is submitted that the petitioner was afforded due opportunity of hearing by notice dated 14.6.2011. As admitted by the petitioner, the petitioner appeared before the answering respondent No.2 District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon for hearing on 30.6.2011. During the course of hearing the petitioner got recorded his statement wherein

¶24

CWP No.14064 of 2012

¶25

¶26

he stated that the objections under Section 5A by them be treated as the statement. After providing opportunity of hearing to all the land owners including the petitioner, the answering respondent No.2 District Revenue Officercum-Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon considered the objections of the land owners including the petitioner and furnished his report under Section 5A of the Act to the State Government. Therefore, there is no violation of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act as alleged.”

¶27

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶28

The objections filed by the petitioner were duly considered by the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In his report under Section 5-A of the Act to the State, it was noticed as under:-

¶29

“On spot the land is vacant. The concerned department has rejected the application for CLU, therefore, it is recommended that this land be acquired.”

¶30

It was not shown that the acquisition of land by the State was not bonafide or was bad for not complying with any mandatory or directory provisions of law. The purpose of acquisition being for establishment of National Defence University, the same could not be said to be unjustified.

¶31

Adverting to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to notice that in those cases on factual matrix involved therein, it was concluded that no proper consideration of objections filed under section 5A of the Act had been made which is not the position here. Thus, these

¶32

CWP No.14064 of 2012

¶33

¶34

pronouncements do not advance the case of the petitioner.

¶35