Dismissed

Dharam Singh Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2013CWP/282/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition challenging the acquisition of agricultural land. The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate malafides or procedural flaws and distinguished their case from a precedent involving a resident school where land was released.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed in limine.

Dharam Singh Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No. 282 of 2013(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP No.282 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision: 2.5.2013

¶6

Dharam Singh Yadav and others .Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ….Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

¶10

judgment?

¶11

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

*****

¶14

Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶15

¶16

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

¶17

Civil Misc. No.5936 of 2013

¶18

Prayer made in the application is for placing on record Annexure P-15 vide which the application moved by the petitioner No.1 has been returned.

¶19

In view of the averments made in the application, which are supported by affidavit, the Civil Misc. Application is allowed. Annexure P-15 is taken on record.

¶20

Civil Writ Petition No.282 of 2013.

¶21

The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to release the land measuring 26 kanals situated in village

¶22

CWP No. 282 of 2013(O&M)

¶23

-2-

¶24

¶25

Baliyana, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak pertaining to the petitioners from the acquisition as the land belonging to other similarly situated persons had been released. Further prayer has been made for quashing the notifications dated 10.1.2010 and 10.1.2011 (Annexures P-2 and P-9) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

¶26

It has been pleaded that the petitioners were having a total 64 kanals 14 marlas of agricultural land in village Baliyana, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak out of which 38 kanals 14 marlas had earlier been acquired for establishing Industrial Model Township, Phase-I, Rohtak. After the said acquisition petitioners were left with only 26 kanals of land. Thereafter, another notification had been issued on 10.1.2010 for acquiring total land measuring 964 acres 3 kanals and 8 marlas of village Baliyana, Kharawar, Kheri-Sadh and Nonand. The said acquisition included the remaining land of the petitioners which was for extension of Industrial Model Township, Phase-III, Rohtak and other public utilities in Sectors 30-C, 30-D and 31-C. The petitioners had made representation for not acquiring the land to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and also filed objections dated 10.2.2010 under Section 5-A of the Act against the proposed acquisition. Notice had been received by them on 22.7.2010 and they were summoned and appeared on 10.8.2010 before respondent no.5 and apprised the authorities of their difficulties that all the family members would become unemployed. However, grant of personal hearing was just a mere eye wash and fertile land was being acquired and land which was barren had been left out from the acquisition. Reliance was also placed on the

¶27

CWP No. 282 of 2013(O&M)

¶28

-3-

¶29

¶30

Civil Writ Petition No.7655 of 2005- M/s Sindhu Education Foundation and others Vs. State of Haryana and others which was decided on 17.11.2010 by holding that the Administration was harassing its citizens. Reference was also made to the sale deed dated 18.11.2010 by which two acres land had been purchased by two person and the same was released from acquisition. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act had been issued on 10.1.2011 whereby 928 acres 3 kanals and 8 marlas of land was sought to be acquired including 26 kanals land pertaining to the petitioners. Accordingly, it was pleaded that 35 acres 17 kanals and 6 marlas land of influential persons had been released from acquisition. Photographs were appended to show that there was construction on the land in dispute also and it had a boundary wall.

¶31

On the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the notifications in question acquiring the land are liable to be quashed and the land in question is liable to be released.

¶32

A perusal of the photographs attached with the present writ petition would go on to show that the land in question though bounded by boundary wall has only couple of out houses constructed. There is no such pleading in the writ petition that the petitioners were residing in the land in dispute and inhabiting in the said houses which would qualify them for exemption in view of the policy of the State Government which provides that where there is construction and person is inhabiting himself in the said construction then his case could be considered for release of land. Infact, the case of the petitioners was that it is fertile land which is being acquired. No instance of any specific barren land which is not

¶33

CWP No. 282 of 2013(O&M) -4-

¶34

¶35

being acquired for the said public purpose has been given nor any such objection was raised under Section 5-A of the Act. In the objections under Section 5-A of the Act, it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioners are staying in 400 sq. yards residential house in the boundary of village. A perusal of M/s Sindhu Education Foundation's case (supra) would go on to show that a school had been constructed on the land in question which had boarding and lodging facilities for its students which was sought to be acquired. Accordingly, it was held that action in not releasing the land whereas the land of other persons had been released was discriminatory. Accordingly, acquisition proceedings were quashed. Such is not the position in the present case as there was no construction except two out houses on the land in question. Non acquisition of 35 acres out of 964 acres 3 kanals and 8 marlas of land by the respondents would not entitle the petitioners for release of their land as release in these cases would be on the basis of the facts and circumstances of their cases which have not been shown to be similar to that of the petitioners. The petitioners have not been able to show that acquisition was malafide or point out any fault in the acquisition proceedings whereby any relief can be granted to them on the ground of lack of following procedure prescribed under the law which may warrant interference in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

¶36

Accordingly, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed in limine.

¶37

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶38

CWP No. 282 of 2013(O&M) -5**** 2.5.2013 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) Pka JUDGE

Dharam Singh Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Singh Yadav & Ors. 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

Sukhwinder Singh @ Kaka Vs State of Punjab

Megha and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Vipin Chutani and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mehar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ram Lal Vs Food Corporation of India and Anr.

Era Infra Engineering Ltd. Vs Hvpnl and Anr.