Dismissed

Om Parkash and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Dec 2014CWP/23769/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowners sought cancellation of sales to private developers, alleging coercion through acquisition proceedings later dropped by the State. The court dismissed the petitions as barred by delay, laches and acquiescence, declined to disturb subsequent purchasers’ rights, and rejected the objection concerning absence of a withdrawal notification. Parties were left to bear their own costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Om Parkash and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Date of Decision : 15^th December, 2014 (FN)

¶3

1. CWP No. 23769 of 2011

¶4

Om Parkash & others

¶5

.......... Petitioners

¶6

Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents ***** 2. CWP No. 7096 of 2012 Mam Chand & others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents ***** 3. CWP No. 3088 of 2012 Chottee Lal & others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents ***** 4. CWP No. 17740 of 2012 Jhabar Singh .......... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents ***** 5. CWP No. 18348 of 2014 Chander Bhan & others .......... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents *****

¶7

State of Haryana & others

¶8

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶9

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -2-

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG

¶11

Present : Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate, Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arnav Kumar Sood for the applicant in CM No.17848 of 2012 in CWP No. 23769 of 2011 Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate and Mr. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate In CWP No.7096 of 2012 Mr.Tushar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Deepak Basatia, Advocate, Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Niraj Jha, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate in CWP No.3088 of 2012 Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate in CM No.12930-2014 in CWP No.23769 of 2011 Mr. Umesh Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Jabar Singh, Petitioner in person. Mr. Ajay Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the interviner in CWP No.23769 of 2011 Mr.Amandeep Singh Talwar, Advocate for Respondent No.4 -Interviner in CWP No.17740 of 2012. Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Dilraj Kaur Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 4,5,6 (in CWP No. 23769 of 2011), for respondents No. 6,7,9, 10,11 (in CWP No. 7096 of 2012), for respondents No. 8,9,10 (in CWP No. 3088 of 2012), for respondent No.3 (in CWP No. 17440 of 2012).

¶12

Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocate, for respondent No.3 in CWP No.3088 of 2012 Mr. Dinesh Kumar Dakoria, Advocate for respondent No.3.(In CWP No.23769-2011) Mr. Alok Kumar Jain, Advocate for respondent No.7 Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate, Mr. Randeep Rai, Sr. Advocte with Mr. Rajeev Anand , Advocate for respondent No.8 - DLF. Mr. Ashish Chopra, Advocate. Mr. R.S.Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶16

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶17

SATYAWAN 3. 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶18

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -3-

¶19

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

By way of this judgment, we will dispose of CWP Nos. 23769 and 7096 of 2011, 3088 and 17740 of 2012 and CWP No.18348 of 2014, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases.

¶21

For brevity, facts are being extracted from CWP No. 23769 of 2011.

¶22

That the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the entire action of the respondents for invoking section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') for public purposes namely integrated complex for residential, recreational and other public utilities for proposed Ch. Devi Lal Industrial Township by compelling the petitioners to divest their valuable and fertile land at throwaway prices under the threat of acquisition to the private persons and when eventually the stage of passing of the award came, the entire acquisition proceedings were withdrawn. It is further prayed in the writ petition that the entire acquisition proceedings were initiated with malafide intention, illegally and in violation of the provisions of the land acquisition act, 1894 and that the same being vitiated by fraud, all transactions including the sale deeds etc. are liable to be setaside without invoking the provisions of part VII of the act. Lastly it has been prayed that an enquiry/investigation through an independent agency in respect of the entire fraud played by the respondents and their officials be ordered.

¶23

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶24

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -4-

¶25

Brief facts of the case as set out in CWP No. 23769 of 2011 are that petitioners were owners of land measuring 982 kanals situated in village Manesar, Lakhnaula, Naurangpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It has been averred in the writ petition that most of the farmers were even in actual cultivating possession of the land in question when the same was taken away by them under the threat of acquisition at throwaway prices. The entire process of acquisition was initiated and facilitated by the revenue authorities, bureaucrats as well as the politicians who were hand in glove with the land mafia and were bent upon to divest the petitioners and other similarly situated farmers from their valuable land.

¶26

Notification under section 4 dated 27.08.2004 proposing to acquire land measuring 912 acres 7 marlas of the 3 villages namely Manesar, Lakhnaula, Naurangpur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon for public purpose namely Integrated Complex for Residential, Recreational and other public utilities for proposed Ch. Devi Lal Industrial Township was issued. To the said notification, the petitioners filed their objections under section 5A of the Act. Thereafter on site inspection and on the basis of objections received from the land owners of all the 3 villages, report of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 26.02.2005, recommended release of the land involving residential houses etc. notification under Section 4 of the Act, was followed by declaration under section 6 of the Act dated 25.08.2005 whereby 688 acres 3 Kanal 12 marlas of land was notified to be acquired for the aforesaid public purpose.

¶27

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶28

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -5-

¶29

It is the case of the petitioners that after notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, certain persons cloaking themselves as agent of the builders started approaching the farmers/petitioners for sale of their land in the name of the builders for a price ranging between 20- 25 Lacs per acre by showing an award of adjoining village Karsan, Manesar and Khow wherein such land fetched a price of Rs. 12.5 lakhs per acre. The said award created panic amongst the petitioners and they out of sheer helplessness started selling their lands to builders on the rates quoted by them vide registered sale deed in their favour.

¶30

Thereafter notice under section 9 of the Act was issued on 02.08.2007 wherein the date for announcement of the award was fixed for 26.08.2007. It is the case of the petitioners that after issuance of notice under Section 9 of the Act, the price of the land was enhanced ranging between Rs.80 Lacs per acre to Rs.1.10 crores per acre by the builders which thus shows that the builders and the government officials were having a common nexus to usurp the land of the petitioners by playing fraud upon them which is further evident from the fact just 2 days before the date fixed for announcement of the award in the present case, the present acquisition proceedings were withdrawn on 24.08.2007 on the pretext that number of cases are pending wherein stay has been granted and parcels of land are under consideration for grant of CLU/license by the government.

¶31

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶32

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -6-

¶33

It is the case set up by the petitioners that when they came to know of the said nefarious design of the respondents, they immediately started protesting against the fraud and process adopted by the respondents for acquisition of their land and on such protest, the petitioners were assured that they will be given one plot or flat in the upcoming residential complex on the same pattern as is being adopted by the state of Haryana in the case of oustees.

¶34

In the year 2009, possession of some land was taken from the petitioners/farmers and active construction over the same was started by the respondents. Aggrieved against the said construction, a representation dated 20.09.2011 was made by the petitioners and thereafter no action having been taken upon the same by the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶35

It is apposite to mention here that respondent No.8 (THE ABW MANESAR ALLOTTEE WELFARE SOCIETY) as well as respondent No.9 (EXPRESS GREEN HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION) were impleaded as party to the present writ petition vide our order dated 19.11.2014 for proper and effective adjudication of the present case.

¶36

State of Haryana in their written statement filed to the writ petition has stated that the present acquisition proceedings were dropped pursuant to notification issued under section 4 and 6 of the Act for Germane and bonafide reasons. In support of the said submission, the Ld. State Council has referred to preliminary submission contained in para 2, which reads thus:-

¶37

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶38

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -7-

¶39

“That it is respectifully submitted that it is correct that the State Government had issued notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act respectively for acquisition of the subject land and subsequently dropped the said acquisition proceedings on 24.08.2007 for genuine and bona-fide reasons. The decision of the Government to drop the subject acquisition proceedings was taken after a thorough appraisal of the following grounds conditions :-

¶40

i) That about 95 CWPs had been filed in this Hon'ble Court challenging the instant acquisition proceedings and this Hon'ble Court had stayed dispossession of land in most of these cases, which was indicative of the likelihood of protracted litigation involving the said acquisition proceedings. It is further submitted that 80 writ petitions have been traced out challenging the instant acquisition proceedings involving about 350 acres of land;

¶41

ii) That the Town and Country Planning Department had also informed that there were several cases of land owners having applied for licences/CLUs for the land measuring about 360 acres forming part of the acquisition proceedings; and

¶42

iii) That furthermore, it was observed that certain parcels from out of the land proposed for

¶43

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶44

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -8-

¶45

acquisition, about 15 acres of land had been released by the Government on the recommendations of Minister's Committee. Besides the State Government released about 55 acres of land on the account that Change in Land Use permission obtained prior to the date of Section 4 notification. About one acre of land was inadvertently notified under Section 6 even though it had been recommended by the LAC as well as HSIIDC for release at the time of issue of Section 6 declaration, was released. Further about one acre of land was released in view of the LOI granted by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for setting up of retail outlet dealership (Petrol Pump) prior to the date of issue of Section 6 declaration. Thus a total of about 71 acres of land had been released by the Government after issue of declaration under Section 6 of the Act in the instant acquisition proceedings.

¶46

The cumulative impact of these developments made it difficult to firm up a view as to what would be the eventual shape and size of the land being acquired by the Government. Accordingly, it was declided not to proceed further with these proceedings.”

¶47

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶48

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -9-

¶49

It has further been stated in the said written statement that fresh notification was to be issued after assessing the encumbrance free shape and size of the land that could be planned in an integrated manner for which a committee headed by the SubDivisional Officer (Civil), Gurgaon was constituted to assess the ground situation and submit its recommendation on the feasibility of acquisition of land in this locality. However the committee opined that it would be extremely difficult to get a contiguous area for planned development in view of the prevailing circumstances. The said committee’s report was endorsed by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (HSIIDC) and eventually the State Government based on the said report, decided to close the acquisition proceedings of the land in question vide order dated 29.01.2010.

¶50

The perusal of the written statement of the State would also reveal that about 38 out of the present petitioners challenged the instant land acquisition proceedings before this Court through various writ petitions and thereafter during the pendency of the same, chose to sell their land of their own volition to the private parties, without waiting for the outcome of the same. The land acquisition collector has determined Rs. 25 Lacs per acre as basic price of the land which after adding solatium and interest works out to be Rs. 41.50 Lacs per acre. It has further been stated in the said written statement that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the said acquisition proceedings which has been filed after a considerable delay of about

¶51

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶52

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -10-

¶53

4½ years i.e. after the State Government decided to drop the said land acquisition proceedings. Even the petitioners have not disclosed the details of the land under their ownership so as to prove their interest to challenge the said acquisition proceedings. It has been stated in the said written statement that the petitioners have prayed for setting aside of the sale deeds but the same cannot be gone into or adjudicated upon by a writ Court and even if they are to be dealt with then the same can be questioned and adjudicated upon by the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction. It has further been stated in the said written statement that out of 117 petitioners, only about 80 petitioners have appended their signatures to the writ petition and therefore the present writ petition is not maintainable qua the other petitioners as the same has not been signed by them.

¶54

An additional affidavit by way of CM No. 3265 of 2013 has been filed by Special Secretary for Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Industries and Commerce Department on behalf of respondent No.1 wherein Annexure R3 appended to the same would show as many as 14 petitioners herein the present writ petition had earlier filed writ petitions before this Court for release of their land which eventually were dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 09.10.2007 in view of the Government’s decision to drop the acquisition proceedings.

¶55

A perusal of the written statement filed by respondent No. 3 would reveal that common objections as regard to maintainability of the writ petition, locus standi of the petitioners to maintain the

¶56

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶57

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -11-

¶58

present writ petition in view of their earlier writ petition filed for release of their land from the purview of acquisition having been dismissed as infructuous by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2007 and the present writ petition having been filed after inordinate and unexplained delay of 4½ years of the present acquisition proceedings having been dropped by the Government, has been taken. In addition thereto, it has been stated therein that petitioners have prayed for setting aside of the sale deeds but no such sale deeds have been annexed with the present writ petition. It has further been stated that about 95 writ petitions involving about 350 acres of land, filed before this Court challenging the said acquisition proceedings in the earlier round. This Court had stayed dispossession of the petitioners from their land in most of these cases. However, the said batch of these writ petitions, were dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 09.10.2007 on the ground that the State Government had chosen to drop the said land acquisition proceedings. It has been averred by the answering respondent that after having purchased the land by parting exorbitant amount and executing registered sale deeds from some of the petitioner, amongst other land owners, applied for grant of license/CLU for developing the land into a residential/group housing/commercial colony and that in the year 2009 the same was granted to them. The answering respondent has expanded about Rs.170 crores towards overall developmental charges over the land in question by raising loans from financial institutions and are servicing the said loan regularly. It has also been stated that the

¶59

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶60

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -12-

¶61

answering respondent had issued advertisements in the leading newspapers as back as in April- May 2010 for launch/sale of plots/space/flats, residential as also commercial/retail in the project namely ‘ABW Aditya Niketan’ and pursuant to the same have created third-party rights in the said project(s). Even petitioner No. 1 has entered into collaboration agreement dated 01.10.2008 in respect of land measuring 1.03 acres situated in village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, which forms part of the residential project, for development of the same into residential colony. The said petitioner has even executed plot allotment agreement on 28.07.2011 with the answering respondent for allotment of 3 plots measuring 490 Sq. Yds. as also commercial space measuring 600 Sq. ft. on 3^rd floor at City Centre, Commercial Complex situated in the said Township and thus he is estopped from filing the present writ petition having acquiesced to the development of the said project.

¶62

Likewise, respondent No.8on raising almost similar pleas to that of respondent No.3 has in addition stated that the land in question in the said project have been purchased by them from their hard earned money whereupon several residential houses have come up and in some cases the same has further been resold/transferred in favour of 4^th party.

¶63

Written statements by the remaining respondents have been filed in consonance with and in line with the written statement filed by respondent Nos.1, 3 and 8 to the present writ petition, the contents thereof need not be reproduced for the sake of brevity.

¶64

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶65

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -13-

¶66

Ld. counsel for the petitioners has argued that under the garb of the present acquisition proceedings for a ceremonial public purpose whatever worth it is for, the respondents have divested them from their valuable and fertile land at throwaway prices ranging between Rs. 20-25 Lacs per acre with malafide intention by compelling and creating such a situation for them by showing award of the adjoining village wherein the land fetched a meagre amount of Rs. 12.5 Lacs per acre. This created panic amongst the poor villages/farmers, forcing them to sell their land to the builders on the artificial rate quoted by them. It is argued that the said land at that time was worth Rs.3 to 4 crores per acre whereas they were pressurised and coerced to sell the same for a meagre amount of Rs.20-25 lakh per acre. He further argued that colourable exercise of power is writ large in the present case inasmuch as the date fixed for announcement of the award was 26.08.2007 while the present acquisition proceedings were withdrawn on 24.08.2007 which thus apparently shows a clear-cut collusion between the State Government and the private builders. Even provisions of Section 48 of the Act were not resorted to for withdrawing from the acquisition. The State Government is deemed to be protector of welfare of its citizens but in the present case Government totally failed to perform its function inasmuch as the petitioners have not only been divested of their ownership rights under the threat of acquisition but they have also been deprived of the benefit of enhancement and oustees quota plot. Buttering the said submissions, Ld. counsel for the petitioner

¶67

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶68

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -14-

¶69

has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Sant Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2014 (2) RCR (Civil) 310 and M/s Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another Vs. G. Jayarama Reddy and others, 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 613 to contend that once a land is acquired by State Government for a particular public purpose and the same is subsequently released in favour of a private person for house building project, the same amounts to fraud on the power of “eminent domain” and for the said reason, the acquisition is nullified and the land is liable to be restored back to its landowner.

¶70

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the petitioners have turned greedy for want of more money despite the fact that they have been given their due share prevalent at that time to the tune of Rs. 20-25 Lacs per acre while purchasing their land. It has further been argued that since the said acquisition was not contiguous as several pockets of land was released therefrom, therefore the same was withdrawn by the State Government. It has also been argued that the present writ petition is not maintainable being based on unspecific, indefinite and vague assertions just to arm twist and blackmail the builders which is evident from the fact that the said writ petition has been filed 4½ years after the present acquisition proceedings having been withdrawn by the State Government. The sale deeds which are being sought to be challenged by the petitioners have not even seen the daylight inasmuch as, petitioners claim themselves to be owners of

¶71

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶72

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -15-

¶73

982 kanals of land whereas only 35 Kanal 3 marlas of land owned by them vide registered sale deeds has come on record. Even otherwise, remedy to challenge the same, if at all available to the petitioners is by way of filing a civil suit within the jurisdiction of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction and that too within a period of 3 years from the date when such action accrued to them. Admittedly as per the petitioners own case, the sale deeds were executed by them in favour of the builders/respondents from the year

¶74

2004-2007, the 1^st sale deed having been executed on 24.10.2004 for which they not only received exorbitant amount as consideration but also pocketed and utilised the same and thus now they cannot turn around to say that the withdrawal of the present acquisition proceedings by the State Government was initiated and done just to favour the private respondents in the present case. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Collector, Bombay and others Vs. M/s Godrej and Boyce, AIR 1987 SC 2421(1) . It has also been pointed out during the course of arguments that petitioner No. 1 in the writ petition under reference has acquiesced for selling of his land in favour of the private respondents inasmuch as he not only voluntarily sold his land to respondent No. 3 but also entered into collaboration agreement dated 01.10.2008 in respect of land measuring 1.03 acres situated in village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. He even entered into an agreement for the purpose of timely development of the project besides having

¶75

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶76

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -16-

¶77

executed plot allotment agreement dated 28.07.2011 with respondent No. 3 for allotment of the plots measuring 490 Sq. yards as also commercial space measuring 600 Sq. feet on 3^rd floor at City Centre, Commercial Complex situated in the said Township. In addition thereto it has been argued that many writ petitioners in the present case had earlier approached this Court by way of filing batch of writ petitions challenging the said acquisition proceedings. In the said writ petitions, dispossession of the petitioners therein was stayed. During the pendency of the said writ petition, some of the petitioners sold their land vide registered sale deed in favour of the private respondents without even waiting for the outcome of the said petitions or the decision of the Government. However, the said writ petition bearing CWP No. 17544 of 2005 alongwith 94 other connected writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 09.10.2007 in view of the decision taken by the Government to drop the acquisition proceedings and that ever since the dismissal of the said writ petition in the year 2007 uptill the filing of the present writ petition in the year 2011, no action or grievance with respect to the said acquisition proceedings was ever raised by the petitioners herein and therefore in view of the same they are estoppled from challenging the same in the present proceedings at such belated stage. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Wewerage Board and others Vs.

¶78

T.T. Murli Babu, 2014 (2) JT 574 as also judgement of this Court in

¶79

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶80

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -17-

¶81

the case of M/s Shiv Shakti Foods Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012 (5) RCR (Civil) 217 . It has further been argued that the private respondents after purchasing the land vide registered sale deeds for consideration from the petitioner and other land owners applied for grant of license to the competent authority for developing the land into a residential/group housing/commercial colony, which was granted to them. Thereafter, they spent around Rs.170 crores on development of the said Township including license fee, scrutiny fee, external development charges and other ancillary charges attached thereto. Requisite advertisements in leading newspapers were issued in April- May 2010 for launch/sale of plots/space/flats, residential as also commercial/retail, in the said Township. Subsequent to the said

¶82

advertisement, 3^rd -4^th party rights have been created as the construction of the group housing is complete. It has been pointed out to us during the course of arguments that approval of building plans was granted on 22.09.2009, pursuant to which, construction of flats were carried out and allotment of 1343 flats spread over 33 acres of land has already been made upon the application submitted by the intending purchasers. The said purchasers have taken loans from various financial institutions for payment of the price of the flat to builders and are now servicing their instalments regularly on making repayment of the same. It has lastly been argued that the present writ petition is not maintainable, as out of 117 writ petitioners only 80 of them have signed the petition.

¶83

We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have

¶84

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶85

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -18-

¶86

gone through the voluminous record produced before us in this case.

¶87

The facts of the case are culled out in the earlier part of our judgment which thus does not need repetition at this stage for the sake of convenience and brevity.

¶88

That a perusal of the prayer clause in the present case would show that the petitioners herein are seeking quashing of sale deeds executed in favour of the private respondents by them as also all other subsequent sale deeds executed therefrom. It is appropriate to notice here that the petitioners are claiming themselves to be the owners of 982 kanals of land in the present case, however, the only sale deeds appended to the present writ petitions are as Annexure-P 6[Collectively] or Annexure-P 8 which reveal that the same only pertains to 35 Kanal 3 marlas of land. Even no detail of the land owned by the petitioners has been provided by them in the present writ petition. Thus in the absence of required sale deeds as well as details of the land on record pertaining to the entire alleged land owned and possessed by the petitioners, we are afraid that such direction for setting aside of the sale deeds can not be granted under writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise it has also come on record and admitted by the petitioners that the sale deeds in the present case were executed and registered way back between the years 20042007, the 1^st of its kind having been executed on 24.10.2004. As per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, period of limitation prescribed for getting an instrument or decree cancelled or set aside or the contract rescinded, is 3 years from the date when it first becomes known.

¶89

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶90

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -19-

¶91

Perusal of the facts would itself show that the sale deed in question being clearly barred by limitation cannot be either questioned in the present proceedings or before principal civil Court of original jurisdiction. This Court in the case of M/s Shiv Shakti Foods Vs. State of Haryana and Others, 2012 (5) RCR (Civil) 217 , observed as follows:-

¶92

“… It is well settled that the maximum limitation for filing the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution would not be more than the one prescribed for filing suit. In that regard reliance is placed on the judgement of the constitution bench in state of Madhya Pradesh versus Bhai Lal Bhai [AIR 1960 SC 1006]. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- ….”

¶93

It is further apparent from the record that the present writ petitioners along with other landowners filed batch of writ petitions in the year 2005 before this Court impugning the present acquisition proceedings. Initially, dispossession of the petitioners therein was stayed but subsequently on the State Government dropping the present acquisition proceedings on 24.08.2007, the said writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 09.10.2007. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, some of the writ petitioners voluntarily sold their land to the private respondents without waiting for the outcome of the said writ petitions or decision of the Government with respect to state of affairs relating to the present acquisition proceedings. No objection with regard to the release of the land in question in favour of the private respondents was ever

¶94

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶95

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -20-

¶96

raised by the petitioners at any time prior to or before this Court at the time when the said writ petitions were being dismissed as infructuous. It is apposite to mention here that out of the present writ petitioners, 14 of them had filed the earlier writ petitions as stated before this Court in the year 2005 as is evident on perusal of Annexure R-3 appended with the Additional Affidavit filed by T.L. Satya Parkash, Special Secretary and director, industries and commerce Department, government of Haryana, Chandigarh dated 19.02.2013. It is also noticed that out of 117 writ petitioners in the present case, only 80 petitioners have signed the petition which thus renders the petition non-maintainable.

¶97

The reason for the State Government to drop the present acquisition proceedings are germane and valid under the backdrop of the present case inasmuch as 350 acres of land out of the total chunk of 912 acres acquired vide the impugned notification issued under section 4 of the Act was under litigation before this Court. For 360 acres of land, licenses/CLU were applied for by the landowners before the Town and Country Planning Department. 15 acres of land was released by the Government on the recommendations of Ministers Committee. Further 55 acres of land was released on account of 'change of land use' permission obtained prior to the date of notification issued under section 4 of the Act. 1 acre of land was recommended for release by land acquisition collector as well as HSIIDC at the time of issuance of declaration under sections 6 of the Act while about 1 acre of land was released in view of LOI granted by

¶98

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶99

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -21-

¶100

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for setting up of retail outlet dealership (petrol pump) prior to the date of issuance of declaration under section 6 of the Act. Thus 71 acres of land was released by the Government after issuance of declaration under section 6 of the Act and a total of 781 acres of land was either released from the purview of acquisition, or was pending approval for grant of license/CLU or was involved in litigation before this Court.

¶101

Even petitioner No.1 [in CWP No. 23769 of 2011], has voluntarily sold his land to respondent No. 3 and has also entered into a collaboration agreement dated 01.10.2008 in respect of 1.03 acres of land situated in village Manesar, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and further executed Plot Allotment Agreement dated 28.07.2011 for allotment of 3 plots measuring 490 Sq. yards as also commercial space measuring 600 Sq. feet on 3^rd floor at City Centre Commercial Complex in the said Township. Thus in our considered opinion, we are of the view that the petitioners by keeping silent and sleeping over the matter for almost half a decade and even not raising hue and cry on the action of the Government in dropping the said acquisition proceedings so as to allegedly favour the private respondents despite having filed batch of writ petitions in the year 2005, have acquiesced and waived off their rights as landowners to claim back their land and thus as such cannot be considered as bonafide litigants rather the present petition seems to be a motivated and instituted out of sheer greed just to blackmail and arm twist the respondents so as to coerce and pressurise them to shell out that

¶102

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶103

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -22-

¶104

extra money for the land acquired of the petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water

¶105

Supply and Sewerage Board and others versus T.T. Murli Babu,

¶106

2014 (2) JT 574 , has in paragraph No. 16 observed as under:-

¶107

“ Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his

¶108

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶109

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -23-

¶110

duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons – who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.”

¶111

We also find from the record that the petitioners are in service being well-informed individuals, active knowledgeable and resourceful in their respective walk of life and well acquainted with the provisions of the said Act and thus we do not see any reason for them to sit over the matter and not react to it for almost half a decade i.e. after dropping of the present acquisition proceedings by the State Government on 24.08.2007 and thus in our considered opinion the present writ petition petitions instituted by the petitioners are hit by delay and latches.

¶112

From the record we find that in pursuance to the land having been transferred in favour of the private respondents by the petitioners vide registered sale deeds for consideration, change of land use/licenses for developing the said land has been granted by

¶113

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶114

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -24-

¶115

the competent authority in favour of respondent No. 8 and its concerns. About Rs. 170 crores has been invested by the respondents on development of the said Township including license fee, scrutiny fee, external development charges and other allied charges applicable thereto. Even advertisements in leading newspapers for launch/sale of plots/space/flats, residential as also commercial/retail in the said project namely ‘ABW Aditya Niketan’ was issued, subsequent to which third-party rights have been created in the said project which are further changed hands by way of transfers. It has been brought to our notice during the course of arguments that around 1343 flats have been constructed and allotted to intending purchasers spread over 33 acres of land. The said persons have raised loans from financial institutions by mortgaging/hypothecating their properties for purchasing the same and are servicing their instalments qua the same regularly. Thus from the said fact it is appropriate to draw curtains to the said motivated litigation filed by the petitioners as on account of their inaction and lapse in impugning the said acquisition within the period of limitation and reasonable time prescribed, the subsequent purchasers of the property in the said project or for that matter the private respondents cannot be held for ransom under the garb of the said litigation just for an extra money which the petitioners are longing from the private respondents for over a decade.

¶116

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sant Singh and others Vs.

¶117

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶118

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -25-

¶119

State of Haryana and others, 2014 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 310 , to state that the acquisition proceedings in the name of public purpose cannot be used as a cloak for the private benefit of builders cum developers. It was further held that while releasing the land just to give the benefits to private builders, the power of ‘eminent domain’ has been exercised in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. In this backdrop, the High Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can annul a sale transaction which is executed in relation to or on playing fraud on the statute. However in our considered opinion, the said judgement rendered in Sant Singh’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as the acquisition in the said case had culminated into passing of an award which is not the case in hand inasmuch as herein the Government had taken a decision not to continue with the acquisition proceedings leading to no award being passed in the same. Further in Sant Singh’s case (supra), license had been obtained on the basis of collaboration agreement and the land was subsequently released after passing of the award, however in the present case the land has outrightly been sold by the landowners to respondent No. 3 by executing conveyance deed in their favour whereupon license was applied for by respondent No. 3 itself being owner of the land, and the license was granted after the decision had been taken by the Government to drop the acquisition. Another stark difference between Sant Singh’s case (supra) and the present case

¶120

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶121

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -26-

¶122

is that no development whatsoever had been carried out over the land and the same was lying in its original form without any construction having been made over it while in the present case not only substantial development in the form of construction had taken place but even third-party rights were created much prior to even the petitioner’s approaching this Court. It is conceded position on record that besides 1400 allotments having been made in respect of the flats, approximately 1400 allotments have been made even in respect of plots developed by respondent No. 3. In addition to the aforesaid distinguishing factors, operation of the judgement rendered in Sant Singh’s case (supra) has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 5455 of 2014 vide order dated 15.04.2014 and thus in view of the same the said case being distinct and peculiar to its own facts is not applicable to the present case.

¶123

As far as judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Royal Orchid Hotels Limited Vs. G. Jayarama Reddy and others, 2011 (4) RCR (Civil) 613 as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, therein also the acquisition proceedings culminated into an award which is not the situation in the present case as herein prior to the award, the present acquisition proceedings were dropped by the Government on account of lack of contiguous planning. Likewise the judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Amita Banta and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2010(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 412 [CWP No. 5878 of 2003 decided

¶124

on 08.12.2009 ] is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances

¶125

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶126

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -27-

¶127

of the present case being distinct and peculiar to its own facts.

¶128

It is the case of the petitioners, that they were forced to sell their property under the threat of acquisition to the private respondents and thus the sale deeds so executed by them in their favour, deserves to be set-aside. However we are unable to agree with the said contention raised by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners as at no stage did the petitioners ever raised hue and cry viz the said acquisition proceedings. Even when the writ petitions were filed by them in the year 2005 impugning the said acquisition proceedings, then also no grievance was raised by them in this regard and in fact during the pendency of these writ petitions, they even sold off their land to the private respondents for consideration and even got sale deeds executed in their favour. Even when the said writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 09.10.2007, then also no such distress or grievance was raised by them before this Court. Until the filing of the present writ petition, no action much less coercive action was taken by the petitioners against the respondents viz. setting aside of the sale deeds on the ground of fraud which thus apparently shows that not only did they acquiesced to the dropping of the said acquisition proceedings by the State Government but also waived off their right to challenge the same as well as the sale deeds executed by them in favour of the private respondents in view of Article 59 of the Limitation Act and thus now at this stage they have no vested or accrued right to challenge the said sale deeds voluntarily executed by them in favour of the private respondents and

¶129

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶130

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -28-

¶131

that too after a long yawning gap of 10 years in view of Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, for which the present writ petitions being hit by delay and latches cannot be entertained for initiating such an action.

¶132

It has further been argued by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners' that no notification under Section 48 of the 1894 Act was issued for withdrawing from acquisition. We are unable to accept the said contention as the said issue is no more res Integra having been decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Murti Sarin and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 2013 (2) RCR

¶133

(Civil) 204 wherein it was held thus:-

¶134

“27. In view of the above, we hold that:-

¶135

(i) the state government is within its executive power to seek opinion of such person or authority before it exercises jurisdiction conferred on it under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894 i.e. under section 6 or under section 48 of the act but the final decision can be only by the state government and to by way of the notifications; and

¶136

(ii) But if the possession has not been taken by the land acquisition collector as per the award announced by it, the state government can allow the acquisitions proceedings to lapse without publication of notification under section 48 of the act, if it is no longer interested in acquisition of land…”

¶137

In view of the observations made hereinabove, we find no ground to interfere with the said acquisition proceedings and the sale deeds executed in favour of the private respondents by the SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶138

CWP No. 23769 of 2011 -29-

¶139

petitioners, being hit by delay and latches and which with the efflux of time has culminated and fructified into creation of 3^rd and 4^th party rights in favour of subsequent purchasers of about 1400 flats/plots constructed and developed by the private respondents after having purchased the land in question from the petitioners long back. We accordingly, dismiss the writ petitions, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶140

(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶141

(RAJ RAHUL GARG) JUDGE

¶142

15^th December, 2014 (FN) 'SP'

¶143

SATYAWAN 2014.12.17 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Om Parkash and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Om Parkash and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sultan Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ravinder etc. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Harpal Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jhabar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Suban & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jagdev Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors.