Allowed

Jagat Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Jan 2014CWP/16417/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashed land acquisition notifications and an award because the petitioners had established residential structures on the land prior to the section 4 notification, citing the State's policy and the fundamental right to shelter under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 and the Award dated 29.3.1989 regarding 11 marlas. Directed refund of compensation with 8% interest if already received, subject to zoning plan complia

Jagat Singh Vs State of Haryana — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.16417 of 1992 Date of Decision: January 14, 2014

¶3

Smt.Bhajni Devi and others .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another .....Respondents

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH.

¶5

Present : Mr.Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Patter, Senior DAG, Haryana.

¶6

-.-

¶7

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

¶8

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶9

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶10

¶11

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶12

The petitioners impugn the notifications dated 20.04.1987 and 19.2.1988 issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively, as also the Award dated 29.3.1989 to the extent of acquisition of their land measuring 11 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Badkhal, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad, where they are said to have constructed a residential house.

¶13

Relying upon a decision of this Court dated 04.09.2013 in CWP No.21572 of 2011 (Rohtas and others versus State of Haryana and others, where it was held that “there is no gain saying that the right to shelter is a vibrant component of right to live with dignity and is one of the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of

¶14

Kumar Mohinder 2014.02.10 15:23 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶15

[2]

¶16

CWP No.9393 of 1992

¶17

the Constitution”, it is contended that the impugned acquisition would take away the only shelter the petitioners and their family members have for themselves.

¶18

The respondents, however, have disputed the petitioner's claim as according to them, no construction was found to have been raised prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.

¶19

The petitioners, on the other hand, controvert the respondents' allegations and rely upon Khasra Girdawari for the years 1987-88 where it is duly recorded that there exists a “Gair Mumkin Dukaan and Makaan” , i.e., shop and house. They also refer to the Award dated 3.1.2001 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat of this Court for the release of their above-mentioned land measuring 11 marlas, against which the respondents have filed their objections.

¶20

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶21

From the documents on record it appears that their is a residential house and shop etc. constructed by the petitioners on the site and the same were very much in existence in the year 1986-87, i.e., when the impugned acquisition took place. The fact of the matter is that now the State Government itself has come up with a Policy dated 26.10.2007, which, inter-alia, provides:-

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Kumar Mohinder 2014.02.10 15:23 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶25

CWP No.9393 of 1992

¶26

[3]

¶27

1. 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.

¶28

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

¶29

xx xx xx xx”

¶30

The said policy has been held to be enforceable by the Supreme Court in Patasi Devi versus State of Haryana and others, (2012) 9 SCC 503 observing as follows:-

¶31

“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......”

¶32

We thus allow this writ petition and quash the impugned notifications dated 20.4.1987 and 19.2.1988 as well as the Award dated 29.3.1989 to the extent of 11 marlas land of the

¶33

Kumar Mohinder 2014.02.10 15:23 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶34

CWP No.9393 of 1992 [4]

¶35

petitioners situated within the revenue estate of Badkhal, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, District Faridabad. However, release shall be subject to the condition that the petitioners shall be required to utilize the released property in conformity with the notified zoning plan of the area. If the petitioners have received the compensation amount, they shall refund the same alongwith interest @ 8% per annum within a period of three months, failing which this writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed.

¶36

Dasti.

¶37

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE January 14, 2014 [AMOL RATTAN SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE

¶38

Kumar Mohinder 2014.02.10 15:23 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Jagat Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagat Singh v. State of Haryana

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

Ram Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Luxmi Traders Vs Union of India and Ors.

Karambir Rathee and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Abhay Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Satwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.