Dismissed

Joginder Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Nov 2016CWP/10529/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bunch of writ petitions challenging notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Award, acquiring land in Karnal for an integrated industrial estate by HSIIDC. The Court upheld the acquisition, held the Section 5-A objections were properly considered, and directed consideration of exchange proposals and release of open space in some cases.

What did the court decide?

Acquisition upheld; petitioners permitted to represent for exchange of land within one month, to be decided by HSIIDC within three months; authorities directed to release additional open space where r

Joginder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

[1]	Civil Writ Petition No.10529 of 2008.
	Date of Decision: November 07, 2016
Joginder Singh and others	......Petitioners versus
State of Haryana and others	.....Respondents
[2]	Civil Writ Petition No.10534 of 2008.
Purshottam Dass	......Petitioner versus
State of Haryana and others	.....Respondents
[3]	Civil Writ Petition No.11366 of 2008.
A New World Hotel	......Petitioner versus
The State of Haryana and other	s .....Respondents
[4]	Civil Writ Petition No.12177 of 2008.
Rajbala and another	......Petitioners versus
State of Haryana and others	.....Respondents
[5]	Civil Writ Petition No.12180 of 2008.
Dayal Singh and others	......Petitioners versus
State of Haryana and others	.....Respondents
[6]	Civil Writ Petition No.12182 of 2008.
Arvinder Pal Singh and others	......Petitioners versus
State of Haryana and others	.....Respondents
[7] Pankaj Gupta and others	Civil Writ Petition No.12188 of 2008. ......Petitioners versus
State of Haryana and others	.....Respondents
[8]	Civil Writ Petition No.12201 of 2008.
Tejbir Singh	......Petitioner versus
State of Haryana and others	.....Respondents
[9]	Civil Writ Petition No.12651 of 2008.
Mauji Ram and others	......Petitioners versus
The State of Haryana and othe	rs .....Respondents
[10]	Civil Writ Petition No.13261 of 2008.
Rajan Khunger	......Petitioner
	versus
State of Haryana and others j and	.....Respondents

¶3

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶4

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶5

[2]

¶6

[11] Arvinder Pal Singh and others	Civil Writ Petition No.13264 of 2008. ......Petitioners versus
State of Haryana and others	.....Respondents
[12]	Civil Writ Petition No.15704 of 2008.
Anil Chaudhary The State of Haryana and oth	......Petitioner versus ers .....Respondents
[13]	Civil Writ Petition No.15718 of 2008.
Savitri Devi and another	......Petitioners versus
State of Haryana and others	.....Respondents
[14]	Civil Writ Petition No.19455 of 2008.
Darshan Singh State of Haryana and others	......Petitioner versus .....Respondents
[15]	Civil Writ Petition No.6027 of 2009.
Mahinder Singh	......Petitioner versus
The State of Haryana and oth	ers .....Respondents
[16]	Civil Writ Petition No.6138 of 2009.
M/s Vijay Motors The State of Haryana and oth	......Petitioner versus ers .....Respondents
[17]	Civil Writ Petition No.4505 of 2009.
Prem Parkash and others	......Petitioners versus
State of Haryana and others [18]	.....Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.6279 of 2009.
Ram Naryan Miglani The State of Haryana and oth	......Petitioner versus ers .....Respondents
[19]	Civil Writ Petition No.8571 of 2009.
M/s BPS Udyog and another	......Petitioners
	versus
The State of Haryana and oth Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh	ers .....Respondents

¶7

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶8

[3]

¶9

[20] Civil Writ Petition No.13288 of 2009. Baljeet Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents [21] Civil Writ Petition No.15529 of 2014. Ashok Mittal ......Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents [22] Civil Writ Petition No.3495 of 2015. Purshotam Bansal and others ......Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

¶10

**CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA. *****

¶11

Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar and Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioners in CWP Nos.10529 and 10534 of 2008, Mr.Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate with Ms.Mannu Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP Nos.11366, 12188, 12651, 15704 of 2008 and 4505, 6027, 6279 and 8571 of 2009. Mr.Gaurav Singla, Advocate, for Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.15529 of 2014. Mr.Govind Rana, Advocate, for Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Hardeep Singh, Dhillon, Advocate, for Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners in CWP No.19455 of 2008 and 3495 of 2015. Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for HSIIDC. Mr.Deepak Balyan, Advocate, for HSIIDC-respondent No.3 in CWP No.3495 of 2015. Mr.Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.14 in CWP Nos.10529, 10534, 10535, 13261, 13262, 13264m 13289, 13304 and 14616 of 2008. Mr.Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondents in CWP Nos.10534, 10535, 12117, 12801, 12182, 13261 and 13262 of 2008. Mr.Sumit Singh Bairagi, Advocate for Mr.Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for respondent No.12. Mr.D.D.Gupta, Advocate and Mr.R.D.Gupta, Advocate, for private-respondents in CWP Nos.2227, 10529, 10534, 10535, 11366, 12177, 12180, 12182, 12188, 12202, 12651, 13261, 13264, 13304, 15704, 19455 of 2008, 6027, 6138 of 2009 and Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 15528 of 2014. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶12

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶13

[4]

¶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

Surya Kant, J

¶18

This order shall dispose of the above-captioned cases in which the petitioners have laid challenge to the notifications dated 27.04.2006 and 26.04.2007 issued under Sections 4 & 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). In some of the writ petitions, the Award dated 23.04.2009 is also under challenge. The impugned acquisition process pertains to the acquisition of the land measuring 227 acres situated within the revenue estate of villages Karnal and Kambopura, for the public purpose of setting-up Industrial Estate, Sector-37, Karnal, to be planned and developed as an Integrated Complex for Industrial and other Public Utilities by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructural Development Corporation (for short, ‘HSIIDC’).

¶19

FACTS:

¶20

[2] State of Haryana vide notification dated 27.04.2006 published under Section 4 of the Act, proposed to acquire 237 acres of land for the above mentioned public purpose. After consideration of objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was notified in respect of land measuring about 234 acres. The Award dated 23.04.2009 was finally announced in respect of land measuring 227 acres.

¶21

[3] After the announcement of Award, the State Government vide order dated 03.01.2013 released 22 acres of the acquired land and the major beneficiaries of that released order are some of the writ petitioners only but they being still dissatisfied, have pressed their respective writ-petitions on

¶22

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentmerits, so as to seek the release of their entire or substantial part of the Chandigarh

¶23

[5]

¶24

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶25

acquired properties/land. It is thus necessary to briefly notice the facts of each case separately as well.

¶26

(1) CWP No.10529 of 2006 ( Joginder Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others )

¶27

The petitioners’ land measuring 91 bighas 3 biswas situated within the revenue estate of Kasba Karnal, the details whereof are given in para Nos.2(a) & (b) of the writ petition, stands acquired vide the impugned acquisition. They filed three sets of objections under Section 5-A of the Act. In the first set, they sought release of the land measuring 2 bigha 12 biswa comprising khasra No.9327 where a motor garage and a restaurant in the name and style of ‘Neelkanth Dhaba’ are set up. In the second set of objections, they sought release of land measuring 36 bigha on the plea that there exists a residential house. In the third set, they claimed the release of the left-out khasra numbers on the ground that the same are required for the 'Neelkanth Dhaba', the 'cattle shed' and also there was a pakka room existing at the site. The petitioners also alleged discrimination as the vacant lands of affluent persons like the brother Rajnik Mann and the mother (Smt.Subhash Chandrika) of the then local MLA Smt.Sumita Singh was released on pick and choose basis.

¶28

[4] The Land Acquisition Collector partly accepted their objections and while recommending to acquire the land for which the first and third sets of objections were filed, he recommended the release of 6 bigha 11 biswa land where residential house was built up. Those recommendations were accepted and the above-mentioned land was not included in the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioners’ land comprising khasra No.9328 (0-6) and khasra No.9327/2 (0-4) was

¶29

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy andreleased on 03.01.2013 under Section 48 of the Act. Since major chunk of integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [6]

¶31

the petitioners’ land remains yet under acquisition, they are still aggrieved and seek quashing of the entire acquisition. The Land Acquisition Collector, HSIIDC as well as State Government have filed their respective repliescum-affidavits taking a categorical stand that the acquisition has been made meticulously following the mandatory procedure and that objections filed by the petitioners or other affected persons were duly considered on merits. As regard to the petitioners’ land, HSIIDC has placed on record the sitephotographs to urge that most of the land is lying vacant and as per the approved lay-out plan, such land is required to develop roads, green belt and for factories or commercial use.

¶32

(2) CWP No.10534 of 2008 ( Purshotam Dass versus State of Haryana and others)

¶33

[5] The petitioner's land measuring 12 bigha situated within the revenue estate of village Kambopura, District Karnal, is part of the subject acquisition. He filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector did not find any merit in those objections and recommended to acquire the petitioner's land which, according to the respondents, was needed, as per the approved lay-out plan, for construction of roads, green belt and commercial use. Plea of discrimination is the Central Point pressed into aid by the petitioner.

¶34

[6] The State Government has filed a comprehensive written statement dated 22.06.2009 justifying its decision to release the land of Smt.Subhash Chandrika and others. As regard to the release of land of Smt.Rajwant Kaur, it is explained that she alongwith one Madhusudan Vij filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and on consideration thereof, the Land Acquisition Collector recommended to release their lands, for

¶35

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy andthere were existing Units and the land-owners had already applied for the integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶36

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [7]

¶37

Change of Land Use permissions. Those recommendations were accepted by the State Government. The written statement, like that of the Land Acquisition Collector is conspicuously silent and does not throw any light on the release of the land of the local M.L.A. even though the petitioners have made specific averments to this effect in para No.2(c) of the writ petition.

¶38

(3) CWP No.11366 of 2008 ( A-New World Hotel versus State of Haryana and others)

¶39

[7] The petitioner is a partnership firm, who owned land measuring 8 bigha 9 biswa situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal as per the details given in para No.2 of the writ petition. The petitioner has constructed a hotel-cum-restaurant-cum-shopping complex over the land adjoining the NH-1. The building is said to have been constructed after getting the Building Plan sanctioned from the Municipal Council, Karnal. Since the petitioner’s entire property was included in the proposed acquisition, it filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector recommended to release the entire land but HSIIDC objected to the same citing the reason that a hotel was not a permissible use in the industrial zone. The State Government accepted the objection of the HSIIDC and notified the petitioner’s land/property under Section 6 of the Act. Subsequently, the authorities were apprised of the fact that the building plan was approved by the Municipal Council and structures were raised after leaving 30 meter wide green belt. HSIIDC thus reconsidered its decision and recommended to release land measuring 5 bigha 3 biswa comprising the hotel etc. The vacant land measuring 3 bigha 3 biswa was recommended for acquisition as it was needed for the green belt alongside

¶40

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy andNH-1. The State Government accepted the revised recommendations of integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶41

[8]

¶42

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶43

HSIIDC. The petitioner is still dissatisfied and has questioned the acquisition of its remaining land measuring 3 bigha 6 biswa.

¶44

[8] In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner’s partner alongwith a Map Plan of Real Time Aerial Imagery, it is claimed that khasra numbers which have been notified for acquisition are integral to the hotel business as the same were used as parking space. The petitioner has thus alternately prayed for exchange of land which it can utilize for parking purposes.

¶45

(4) CWP No.12177 of 2008 ( Rajbala and another versus State of Haryana and others)

¶46

[9] The petitioners are owners of land measuring 14 bigha 17 biswa situated within the revenue estate of Kasba Karnal, as per the details given in para No.2(a) of the writ petition.

¶47

[10] Though the land of the petitioners was totally vacant, their grievance is that the acquisition is based upon pick and choose basis and it exhibits colourable exercise and abuse of power of 'eminent domain' as vacant land of affluent persons like the family members of the local MLA, (Smt.Subhash Chandrika and that of Rajwant Kaur) have been released to extend undue benefit to these persons.

¶48

[11] The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act but the Land Acquisition Collector rejected the same. Their land was accordingly included in the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. It is explained that as per the approved lay-out plan, the petitioners’ land falls under roads and industrial plots.

¶49

[12] HSIIDC has filed its written statement mainly highlighting the laudable object behind the acquisition and the public purpose of developing

¶50

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy andthe Integrated Industrial Complex. integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶51

[9]

¶52

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶53

(5) CWP No.12180 of 2008 ( Dyal Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others )

¶54

[13] The petitioners owned 105 bigha 17 biswa land within the revenue estate of Kasba Karnal as per the details given in para No.2(a) of the writ petition. In their objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, the petitioners sought release of land measuring 95 bigha 7 biswa (exclusive ownership other than the share in shamlat deh). As the land had been lying vacant, their objections were rejected for their land was required for construction of roads, development of industrial plots, institutional use, multi-specialty hospital as well as for carving out plots under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. The petitioner's grievance is that the vacant lands of affluent persons like the family members of the local MLA (Smt.Subhash Chandrika and Rajwant Kaur etc.) have been released to grant undue benefit to these persons.

¶55

(6) CWP No.12182 of 2008 ( Arvinder Pal Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others )

¶56

[14] The petitioners are partners in 'KCM Agricultural Farm' which owns land measuring 75 bigha in village Kambopura, District Karnal. Since the said vacant land has also been included in the subject acquisition that the aggrieved petitioners have approached this Court. Their objections under Section 5-A of the Act were rejected as according to the respondents, the open land was required for the integrated planning and contiguity of the project and it falls within the alignment of various roads and industrial plots. The petitioners also allege discrimination as the vacant land of affluent persons like family members of local MLA had been released.

¶57

(7) CWP No.12188 of 2008

¶58

( Pankaj Gupta and others versus State of Haryana and others )

¶59

The petitioners are three brothers. They are also partners in

¶60

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and[15] integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶61

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [10]

¶62

OPN Enterprises Private Limited. Their land measuring 32 bigha 13 biswa situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal and purchased vide registered sale deed dated 21.04.2005, is also subject matter of acquisition. After the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, on 27.04.2006, they applied for Change of Land Use permission also on 11.05.2006. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act as well but the Land Acquisition Collector did not find any merit and rejected the same. The State Government accepted the recommendations of the Collector and notified the petitioners’ entire land under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners too have rested their challenge on the plea of discrimination in the light of the fact that vacant land of family members of local MLA was released and such a benefit was further extended to other affluent persons as well.

¶63

(8) CWP No.12201 of 2008 ( Tejvir Singh versus State of Haryana and others )

¶64

[16] The petitioner is owner of land measuring 19 bigha 12 biswas fully described in para No.2(a) of the writ petition and situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal. Out of this, 15 bigha and 15 biswa land was included in the impugned acquisition but the petitioner while filing the objections under Section 5-A of the Act, sought release of his entire land measuring 19 bigha 12 biswa, may be under the misconception that his entire land was under acquisition. Since the land was lying vacant, the Land Acquisition Collector rejected his objections and consequently, the petitioner’s land measuring 15 bigha 15 biswa was notified under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner has also reiterated the allegations of discrimination alleging that vacant lands of affluent persons like the brother

¶65

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and(Rajnik Mann) and the mother (Smt.Subhash Chandrika) of the local MLA integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶66

[11]

¶67

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶68

Ms.Sumita Singh etc., have been released. He has also cited an instance of Ms.Rajwant Kaur's vacant land being released.

¶69

[17] The respondents maintained that as per the approved lay-out plan, the land of the petitioner falls under the roads and municipal plots, hence could not be exempted.

¶70

(9) CWP No.12651 of 2008 ( Mauji Ram and others versus State of Haryana and others ).

¶71

[18] Petitioners Nos.1 to 3 own land measuring 22 bigha 12 biswa consisting of two separate lots but adjoining to each other, over which petitioner Nos.4 & 5, which are registered firms, have set up a Rice-Shelling Plant.

¶72

[19] Their above-stated land was included in the subject acquisition against which they filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners sought release of their land primarily on the ground that they have been already running an industrial unit, namely, for the same purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired. Though the Land Acquisition Collector recommended to release only 6 bigha land of the petitioners but the beneficiary, namely, HSIIDC took the view that since all the operational industrial units which were set-up without obtaining the Change of Land Use permission, have been released from acquisition, the petitioners too were entitled to the same treatment, hence, HSIIDC recommended to release their land measuring 15 bigha 11 biswa where the rice-sheller had been established. Those recommendations were accepted and out of the 22 bigha 12 biswa petitioners’ land, 15 bigha 11 biswa was released. They are nevertheless still dissatisfied qua the acquisition of remaining vacant land measuring 7 bigha 1 biswa. The respondents have explained that as per the Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy andapproved lay-out plan, the acquired land of the petitioners is needed for the integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶73

[12]

¶74

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶75

construction of service road and green belt alongside NH-1.

¶76

[20] The petitioners have also placed on record the Map Plan created using Real Time Aerial Imagery of the entire area under acquisition to assert that acquisition of their land for an additional 20 meters wide green belt is totally arbitrary and discriminatory as the acquisition has no contiguity and the green belt cannot be developed on isolated patches of land. They further claim that the acquired vacant land is needed to support the existing industry such as for stocking the raw-material, loading/ unloading of trucks, effluent treatment plan and labour quarters etc. The petitioners have alternatively suggested the exchange of their land with adjoining acquired area.

¶77

(10) CWP No.13261 of 2008 ( Rajan Khunger versus State of Haryana and others )

¶78

[21] The petitioner is the proprietor of a firm M/s Rajan Motors, Karnal, which is a registered small scale industry. The petitioner owns land measuring 5 bigha 8 biswa within the revenue estate of village Karnal, fully described in para No.2 (a) of the writ petition.

¶79

[22] Since the petitioner’s vacant land was proposed to be acquired, he filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act which were rejected by the Collector and the land was included in the declaration published under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner is also said to have applied for Change of Land Use permission on 18.05.2006, i.e., after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner seeks release of his land on the plea of discrimination as according to him, the vacant lands of affluent persons like local MLA, her family members and that of M/s BRS Automobiles and M/s Modern Automobiles etc. have been released on pick

¶80

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15I attest to the accuracy andand choose basis. integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶81

[13]

¶82

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶83

(11) CWP No.13264 of 2008

¶84

( Arvinder Pal Singh and others vs State of Haryana and others)

¶85

[23] The petitioners are owners of land measuring 15 bigha 11 biswa fully detailed in para No.2(a) of the writ petition and situated in the revenue estate of Kasba Karnal.

¶86

[24] While their land is admittedly lying vacant, the grievance of the petitioners as spelt out from para No.2(b) of the writ petition is that the vacant land owned by local M.L.A., i.e., respondent No.4-Ms.Sumita Singh, measuring 53 bigha 5 biswa has been released. Similarly, vacant land of one Rajwant Kaur is also said to have been released in the same fashion. The petitioners on this premise have alleged that the acquisition is founded upon pick and choose, abuse of power of eminent domain and amounts to colourable exercise of power etc.

¶87

[25] The Land Acquisition Collector has filed an evasive written statement without controverting the petitioners’ allegations. The District Town Planner in his separate written statement has claimed that as per the approved lay-out plan, the land in question is required for a 30 meter wide road, multi-specialty hospital and allotment of plots under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy. He has also appended the photographs of the vacant land of the petitioners.

¶88

[26] It is further averred that the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act were duly considered but having regard to the fact that their land is lying vacant, the objections were rejected and the land was recommended for acquisition.

¶89

(12) CWP No.15704 of 2008

¶90

( Anil Chaudhary versus State of Haryana and others )

¶91

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj[27] The petitioner is the owner of land measuring 2 bigha 4 biswa 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶92

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [14]

¶93

comprising khasra No.9222 (1-0) and 9223 (3-19) situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal, which is approximately 2200 square yards. He is said to have set-up a small scale industry after getting the building plan sanctioned from the Municipal Council, Karnal, in the name and style of 'Durga Industry' for manufacturing Iron and Hardware goods. The petitioner’s entire land/property was included in the proposed acquisition. He filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector recommended to release the petitioner’s land on account of the existing industrial unit. HSIIDC also agreed to those recommendations but subject to a rider that the petitioner would transfer land for 50 meter wide green belt alongside NH-1 to the Government free of costs. Though the petitioner’s land/property was included in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, but on the recommendations of HSIIDC, a part of land in khasra No.9223 measuring 10 biswa was subsequently released. Since remaining land measuring 1 bigha 14 biswa is still under acquisition that the aggrieved petitioner is before us. The respondents have in their replyaffidavit claimed that the subject land is required for the service-road and green belt.

¶94

[28] The petitioner has filed additional affidavit alongwith Map Plan created using Real Time Aerial Imagery and has questioned the very logic behind the acquisition of his land for an additional 20 meter wide green belt which according to him, cannot be developed for want of contiguity. The petitioner has also given a proposal for exchange of his land, if at all it is needed for green belt, so that he can utilize the alternative land for stocking the raw-material, loading and unloading of trucks, labours’ cycle stand, guard room and car parking area etc.

¶95

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶96

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶97

[15]

¶98

(13) CWP No.15718 of 2008 ( Savitri Devi and another versus State of Haryana and others )

¶99

[29] The petitioners are co-shares in the land described in para Nos.2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the writ petition situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal. In addition, petitioner No.2 is stated to be in possession of the land measuring 5 bigha 1 biswa as a co-sharer in shamlat deh of village Karnal, comprising khasra No.9281. Their abovestated land has also been included in the impugned acquisition. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act which were accepted only to the limited extent that constructed area of petitioner No.1 measuring 1 bigha and 6 biswa comprising khasra No.9286min and 9302 min. has been ordered to be released. Rest of their vacant land shown in ‘yellow’ colour in the site-plan (P-2) has been notified for acquisition.

¶100

CWP No.19455 of 2008 ( Darshan Singh versus State of Haryana and others )

¶101

[30] Petitioner owns land measuring 6 bigha 14 biswa situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal as described in para No.2(a) of the writ petition. He is said to have set-up a poultry farm with capacity of 3000 birds on the subject land. He is also claimed to have constructed a feed store, an eggs store, a servant quarter and an office at the site. In addition, a part of the land is stated to have been rented out for running a Dhaba. Two shops are also said to have been constructed there. Since the above-stated land was proposed to be acquired, the petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act but the Land Acquisition Collector found no merit and rejected the same. State Government agreed with the recommendations of the Collector, hence, the entire land has been notified for acquisition under Section 6 of the Act.

¶102

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶103

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [16]

¶104

[31] While the petitioner seeks release of his land on the plea of discrimination repeating those very allegations which other writ-petitioners have made, the respondents' case is that as per the approved lay-out plan, the land of the petitioner falls under the roads and the area earmarked for multi specialty hospital and for carving out plots under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy.

¶105

(15) CWP No.6027 of 2009. ( Mahinder Singh versus State of Haryana and others )

¶106

[32] The petitioner owns land measuring 5 bigha 17 biswas situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal, as per the details given in para No.2 of the writ petition. He has constructed a Dhaba known as ‘A-One Hotel’ over a piece of land measuring 4 bigha. The land measuring 1 bigha 2 biswa is said to have been utilized for the construction of residential house on rear side of the Dhaba. On the remaining land, an orchard with more than 100 fruit bearing trees is said to have been developed. The petitioner claims that the above-stated constructions alongwith the orchard deserve to be exempted from acquisition as per the Government policy.

¶107

[33] The petitioner has in his additional affidavit filed alongwith the Map Plan created using Real Time Aerial Imagery averred that the land which is a part of the Dabha building, with a tubewell, washing area and servant quarter has also been notified for acquisition. He has further claimed that the acquisition of his land for 20 meters wide additional green belt is totally arbitrary and discriminatory as barring a few patches of land adjoining NH-1, there is no acquisition in contiguity for 15 meters wide service road or 50 meter wide green belt running parallel to NH-1. The petitioner has further suggested to give alternative land in exchange,

¶108

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy andequivalent to his acquired area of 3 bigha 17 biswa. integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶109

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [17]

¶110

[34] The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and sought release of his entire property measuring 5 bigha-1 biswa on account of existing residential house and Dabha etc.

¶111

[35] The Divisional Town Planner in his reply-affidavit dated 07.05.2014 has averred that the residential house constructed on khasra no.9254 (23B-0B) has since been released subject to the condition that he would transfer the land required for 50 meter wide green belt alongside the NH-1, to the Government for free of cost but the remaining land cannot be released as it affects the planning of green belts and 15 meters 'service road' parallel to the G.T.Road, besides the area reserved for Institutional use.

¶112

(16) CWP No.6138 of 2009 ( M/s Vijay Motors versus State of Haryana and others)

¶113

[36] The petitioner’s land measuring 7 biswa situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal has been acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector found no merit in the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 5-A of 1894 Act. The petitioner’s land was thus notified under Section 6 of the Act. Subsequently, another representation was made to the State Government and on reconsideration, HSIIDC recommended to release 2 biswa land of the petitioner comprising khasra No.9223 (min.). The remaining land was decided to be acquired for the green belt alongside NH1. The petitioner is not satisfied with the part-release of its land, hence this writ petition. The plea taken is that the petitioner has set-up a workshop which is a small scale industrial unit duly registered with District Industries Centre, Karnal. Some structures have been raised at the site as could be seen from the photographs. The site-plan has been appended to suggest that the entire piece of land is needed for running the unit.

¶114

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and[37] The record further reveals that the Land Acquisition Collector integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶115

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶116

[18]

¶117

though found M/s Vijay Motors as a functional unit at the site but according to him, the garage does not fall within the definition of ‘industry’, hence he rejected the objections.

¶118

(17) CWP No.4505 of 2009 ( Prem Pakash and others versus State of Haryana and others )

¶119

[38] The petitioners are owners of land measuring 5 bigha 10 biswa fully described in para No.2(a)&(b) of the writ petition and situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal. The petitioners have set-up two industrial units in the name and style of - (i) M/s Jai Durga Spinning Mills and (ii) LITECH International, and a huge construction is said to have been raised at the site where both the industrial units are functional. The petitioners are said to have invested crores of rupees in these industries.

¶120

[39] Since the above-mentioned land/property measuring 5 bigha 10 biswa was proposed to be acquired, one of the petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector in his report admitted the fact that the industrial unit M/s Jai Durga Spinning Mill existed on khasra No.9300 min, but it was stated to be lying closed for the last several years and there were no industrial activities going on. Hence, the Collector rejected the objections. Since other petitioners are said to have not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act, the respondents claim that the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶121

[40] The petitioners, on the other hand, allege adoption of pick and choose policy in the matter of acquisition and release of the land and have reiterated the allegations of arbitrary release of land of affluent persons like the brother (Rajnik Mann) and mother (Smt.Subhash Chandrika) of local MLA Ms.Sumita Singh etc.

¶122

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶123

[19]

¶124

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶125

(18) CWP No.6279 of 2009 ( Ram Naryan Miglani versus State of Haryana and others )

¶126

[41] Petitioner owns land measuring 8 bigha 16 biswa situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal as described in para No.2 of the writ petition. It is averred that initially land measuring 1 bigha and 8 biswa was purchased in the name of AP Industries which is a small scale industrial unit established for manufacturing of agricultural implements. The unit is duly registered with the District Industries Centre, Karnal since the year 1989. As the petitioner’s land measuring 7 bigha 2 biswas was included in the acquisition, he filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and on consideration thereof, the Land Acquisition Collector recommended to release the land in view of an existing industrial unit. HSIIDC agreed to release only 2 bigha 13 biswa land where the industrial unit was found in existence. The remaining land measuring 4 bigha 9 biswa was recommended for acquisition as it was required for green belt alongside NH-1.

¶127

[42] The petitioner is aggrieved at the acquisition of his abovestated vacant land primarily on the ground of discrimination making same set of allegations as are averred in other writ petitions. He further claims that the acquired land is needed for ancillary activities of the industry and is being used for the same purpose for which it is sought to be acquired.

¶128

(19) CWP No.8571 of 2009 ( M/s BPS Udyog and another vs State of Haryana and others )

¶129

[43] The partner of petitioner No.1 (Suresh Bansal) alongwith petitioner No.2 are owners of the land measuring 36 bigha 11 biswa situated within the revenue estate of village Kambopura, District Karnal, as per the Mohinder Kumar Kambojdetails given in para No.2 of the writ petition. Since the subject land falls 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶130

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [20]

¶131

within the industrial area as per the notified zoning plan, the same was purchased as they intended to set-up the business of Petrol Pump, Food Joint, Car Repairs, Heavy Vehicles Repairs and Marble Process Unit. The firm was got registered for this purpose as a Small Scale Industrial Unit with the Industries Department on 31.03.2006. Meanwhile, the impugned notification dated 26.04.2006 (under Section 4 of the Act) followed by Notification dated 26.04.2007 (under Section 6 of the Act) were issued and the land of petitioners measuring 29 bigha and 11 biswa was also proposed to be acquired. Their objections under Section 5-A of the Act were rejected and HSIIDC also agreed to the Collector's recommendations for the reason that the petitioners had applied for the grant of Change of Land Use permission on 03.05.2006, i.e., after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Their land comprising khasra Nos.359/1 and 360, however, was not found to be a part of the acquisition process. The foremost ground for challenging the acquisition raised by the petitioners is the same as has been pressed into aid by other writ petitioners.

¶132

(20) CWP No.13288 of 2009

¶133

( Baljit Singh versus State of Haryana and others )

¶134

[44] The petitioner is the owner of the land measuring 14 biswa comprising khasra No.9215 situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal. Since the above-stated vacant piece of land has been acquired and as per the approved lay-out plan, it falls within the 50 meter wide green belt alongside NH-1, the petitioner has questioned the acquisition of his land as well as the Government Policy contained in letter dated 17.05.2007 on the widening of the above-mentioned green-belt.

¶135

[45] The grievance of the petitioner is that vacant land of the

¶136

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy andaffluent persons like brother (Rajnik Mann) and mother (Smt.Subhash integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶137

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [21]

¶138

Chandrika) of local MLA Ms.Sumita Singh etc., who have been impleaded as party-respondents, have been released on pick and choose basis.

¶139

[46] The respondents have questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not file objections under Section 5-A of the Act and as per the approved lay-out plan, his land falls under the green belt.

¶140

(21) CWP No.15529 of 2014 ( Ashok Mittal versus State of Haryana and others )

¶141

[47] The petitioner purchased three parcels of land measuring 4 bigha 3 biswa, 3 bigha 13 biswa and ½ share out of 13½ bigha, i.e., total 13 bigha 19 biswa, situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal, on 14.10.2005 as per the details given in para No.2(a) of the writ-petition, allegedly for establishing an automobile workshop.

¶142

[48] Since the petitioner’s land was included in the proposed acquisition, he filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act taking a plea that he wanted to set-up workshop in the name and style of ‘M/s Mahesh Motors’ for the repair of vehicles. The Land Acquisition Collector rejected his objections and recommended for acquisition of the land. Those recommendations were accepted by State Government and petitioner’s land was also notified under Section 6 of the Act.

¶143

[49] The petitioner, after initiation of acquisition process of his land, applied for Change of Land Use permission on 14.06.2006 but his application was finally rejected on 30.09.2009.

¶144

[50] The petitioner thereafter reconciled with his fate but after a considerable long gap represented to the Chief Minister, Haryana, on 14.01.2013 for the release of his land under Section 48 of 1894 Act. He is

¶145

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy andclaimed to have filed a formal petition under Section 48 of the Act on integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶146

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [22]

¶147

07.03.2013 and then approached this Court by way of CWP No.12717 of 2013. His writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide his pending representation which was finally rejected vide order dated 15.04.2014 (P-14).

¶148

[51] The petitioner alleges discrimination in the matter of release of land on the basis of an instance given in para No.14 of the writ petition but has not impleaded such beneficiaries as party-respondents.

¶149

[52] State of Haryana in its separate and comprehensive written statement dated 13.02.2015 has explained, inter-alia , that the petitioner started representing for the release of his land after the Award was announced on 23.04.2009. It has been further explained that only those lands have been released under Section 6 of the Act where though CLU permissions were not obtained but the industrial units were functional. No vacant land has been released on the plea that CLU permission has been applied. The photographs of the petitioner’s vacant land have also been appended.

¶150

(22) CWP No.3495 of 2015 ( Purshotam Bansal and others vs State of Haryana and others )

¶151

[53] The petitioners are owners of the land fully described in para No.2 of the writ petition, situated within the revenue estate of village Kambopura, District Karnal. They are said to have set-up a Nursery Green House Shed and were in the process of setting-up a Bio-tech lab with technical collaboration of Government of India through National Horticulture Board, in the name and style of ‘Kalpana Bio-tech Institute’.

¶152

[54] A part of their land measuring 11 kanal 13 marla was meanwhile decided to be acquired vide notifications dated 24.04.2006 and Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15I attest to the accuracy and26.04.2007 issued under Sections 4 & 6, respectively of the Act. The integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶153

[23]

¶154

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶155

petitioners challenged the above-stated acquisition in CWP No.10534 of 2008 in which stay dispossession was granted by this Court.

¶156

[55] While the above-stated acquisition is sub-judice before this Court, the State of Haryana issued a fresh notification dated 24.12.2013 under Section 4 of the Act reciting, inter-alia, that the ‘left-out pockets of land specified below’ are recommended to be acquired for the same public purpose for which acquisition was carried out in the year 2006-2007. The fresh notification included the left-out land of the petitioners measuring 3 kanal 14 marla comprising khasra No.263/1 situated within the revenue estate of village Kambopura, District Karnal.

¶157

[56] It appears that the petitioners did not file objections under Section 5-A of the Act within the prescribed period. They claimed to have submitted such objections almost after one year on 11.12.2014 (P-5).

¶158

[57] State of Haryana meanwhile published notification dated 18.12.2014 (P-4) under Section 6 of the Act.

¶159

[58] The petitioners have placed reliance on the Government policy dated 24.01.2011 to contend that their existing construction deserves to be released. State of Haryana in its detailed written statement dated 16.12.2015 has taken a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the writ petition as the petitioners did not file objections under Section 5-A of the Act, hence the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration versus Gurdeep Singh Uban and others, AIR 1999 SC 3822.

¶160

[59] The State of Haryana has also placed reliance on Section 24(1) read with Section 114 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶161

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [24]

¶162

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2013 Act’), to urge that since acquisition process had been initiated before the new Act came into force, hence issuance of Section 6 notification under old Act is tenable. They have further conceded that since no Award was passed under the old Act, the land-owners would have the benefit of the provisions of new Act (2013 Act) in as much as the compensation shall be assessed under the provisions of 2013 Act. It has been further averred that the acquisition is meant for a bonafide public purpose, namely, regulated industrial development through a Government agency. Rests of the allegations made by the petitioners have also been controverted.

¶163

PETITIONERS’ CASE AND THEIR CONTENTIONS

¶164

[60] It may be stated at the cost of repetition that land measuring 237 acres was proposed to be acquired out of which 234 acres was notified under Section 6 of the Act on 26.04.2007 for the development of Industrial Sector 37 at Karnal.

¶165

[61] The Government record reveals that soon after the publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act, Smt.Subhash Chandrika and others made a representation to the Chief Minister, Haryana on 13.06.2007 for the release of their land measuring 59 bigha 13 biswa situated within the revenue estate of village Karnal. This representation was directly entertained in the office of Chief Minister, Haryana and his Principal Secretary passed an order on behalf of the then Chief Minister, to the effect that “since house of the applicants has already been released which is situated in the centre of the chunk of land of the applicants, the surrounding land cannot be utilized for proper planning. He has, therefore, ordered that

¶166

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj2016.12.22 15:15 the land of the applicants contained in khasra numbers mentioned in their I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶167

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶168

[25]

¶169

representation be released from acquisition…”

¶170

[62] Somewhat similar release orders were passed for the benefit of Smt.Rajwant Kaur and Madhusudan Vij also but after obtaining a report to the effect that there were existing industrial units and CLU had also been obtained by them.

¶171

[63] Finally, the Award was passed on 23.04.2009 in respect of the land measuring 227 acres.

¶172

[64] Yet another release order was passed on 03.01.2013 purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act whereby 28 acres additional land was released and most of the beneficiaries of this release order were the petitioners only. The details of their lands released under the order dated 03.01.2013 have since been given while summarizing the facts of their cases. Some of the writ-petitions have been disposed of as infructuous as the owners in those cases were satisfied with the release of substantial parts of their properties/land.

¶173

[65] The acquisition has been made for the public purpose of development of an integrated industrial complex with various allied services like multi-specialty hospital, budget hotel, some commercial establishments and some plots for rehabilitation and resettlement of the oustees. The entire project is to be executed by a Government Company, namely, HSIIDC.

¶174

[66] Industrial growth is the backbone of a nation’s economy. It generates employment and revenue both. It makes the nation self-dependent besides earning foreign exchange. The regulated industrialization of an area also prevents haphazard growth or setting up of unplanned units which are detrimental to health and working conditions of labour and small scale Mohinder Kumar Kambojworkers. The object of the acquisition in the case in hand thus fully satisfies 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶175

[26]

¶176

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶177

the ingredients of 'public interest' and its bonafide s are beyond any pale of doubt.

¶178

[67] Regardless of the genuineness of the public purpose of acquisition, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned notifications and the subsequent proceedings are liable to be struck-down, inter-alia, on the following grounds:-

¶179

(i) the subject acquisition is a glaring example of hostile discrimination and abuse of power of eminent domain, for the lands of affluent persons like family-members of local MLA have been released, whereas petitioners’ lands have been acquired on the pretext of being vacant and open;

¶180

(ii) the objections submitted under Section 5-A of the Act have not been considered in entirety and the Land Acquisition Collector adopted a callous and casual approach while deciding the same in a pre-judged manner;

¶181

(iii) the decision making process under Section 5-A of the Act has been largely influenced by HSIIDC who is the benefactor of the acquisition. It was urged that the report of the Land Acquisition Collector, was superseded by the comments and opinion of HSIIDC, whose recommendations/opinion has largely influenced the decision of the Government on their objections;

¶182

(iv) it is claimed on illustrative basis, that objections filed by petitioners (P-4 in the lead case) were considered by the Land Acquisition Collector (report P-15) and thereafter HSIIDC’s opinion was sought (P-16). Thus the statutory powers of the

¶183

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶184

[27]

¶185

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶186

Collector and of appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 5-A(2) read with Section 6(1) of the Act were completely surrendered. Reliance was placed in this regard on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (i) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited versus Darius Shapur Chenai and others, (2005) 7 SCC 627 and a Full Bench decision of this Court in (ii) Ram Murti Sarin versus State of Haryana and others, 2013 (2) RCR (Civil), 204;

¶187

(v) in some of the cases like CWP Nos.1265, 6027, 1570 & 11366 of 2008 and CWP No.6138 of 2009 etc., the existing industrial units have been rendered defunct as the land underneath factory premises has been released but adjoining open area which is needed for allied activities is sought to be acquired. Without such land, the petitioners cannot run their industrial or commercial activities which have been otherwise released in principle;

¶188

(vi) similarly, lands of some of the Dhabas (Restaurants) have not been exempted from acquisition on an erroneous premise that such activities do not fall within the definition of ‘industry’;

¶189

(vii) likewise, acquisition has been made without any application of mind in asmuch as though the documents on record in CWP No.6279 of 2009 establish it as a running industry yet only small part of its land has been released and major chunk has been acquired;

¶190

(viii) alternatively, some of the petitioners are entitled to exchange of their lands as the vacant land adjoining/behind their

¶191

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶192

[28]

¶193

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶194

establishments have also been acquired and the same can be conveniently given to them in lieu/exchange of their acquired land without affecting the purpose of acquisition or approved lay-out plan. This would, according to the petitioners, enable the respondents to develop 50 meter wide green belt alongside NH-1 and at the same time, save the functional industrial units also;

¶195

(ix) since many petitioners are already in use of the acquired land for the same purpose for which it is sought to be acquired, namely, industrialization, their properties deserve to be released in entirety in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.K.M. Kattha Industries Private Limited versus State of Haryana and others, (2013) 9 SCC 338, followed by this Court in a bunch of writ petitions decided on 29.10.2013 including CWP No.2940 of 2002 (Sannat Jain and others versus State of Haryana and others). Similar view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in judgment dated 28.01.2011, deciding a bunch of writ petitions including CWP No.19595 of 2005 (Anil Kakkar and another versus State of Haryana and others). The judgment of Bombay High Court reported as Metro Theatre Bombay Limited and another versus Union of India and others, 1988 AIR (Bombay) 183, wherein learned Single Judge has viewed that the Government cannot invoke powers under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire a running business or commercial undertaking, was also cited.

¶196

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶197

[29]

¶198

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶199

RESPONDENTS’ COUNTER:

¶200

[68] On the other hand, learned State counsel urged that;

¶201

(i) the acquisition has been made for a genuine and justified 'public purpose'. The Integrated Industrial Complex would be developed by the State’s agency;

¶202

(ii) the very foundation of the petitioners’ claim, namely, 'discriminatory' exercise of powers behind releasing the land of family members of the then local MLA has disappeared as the State Government has on reconsideration, taken a fresh decision on 16.02.2015 whereby the release order stands withdrawn and the entire land of Smt.Subhash Chandrika and others have been re-acquired;

¶203

(iii) even if there is an instance of illegal release of the land, this Court would not accept the plea of discrimination to perpetuate the illegality and in such a case where ineligible persons have got the benefit of exemption, the benefit may be declared invalid as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anand Buttons Limited versus State of Haryana and others, (2005) 9 SCC 164;

¶204

(iv) there is nothing illegal per se in securing comments/opinion of HSIIDC for whom the acquisition was made, as the final decision was to be taken by the State Government only. In this context, learned State counsel also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Murti Sarin and others’

¶205

case (supra);

¶206

(v) the lay-out plan of Sector-37, Karnal (R-4) unambiguously

¶207

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶208

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [30]

¶209

suggests that if the land/properties of the petitioners are exempted, the entire project would fail and the public purpose of developing Sector-37, Karnal as a regulated integrated industrial complex would stand defeated.

¶210

STAND OF SMT.SUBHASH CHANDRIKA AND OTHERS;

¶211

[69] It may be noticed that though the State Government has recalled its earlier decision dated 20.07.2009 whereby the land of respondent No.15 and her family-members was exempted from acquisition, yet respondent No.15 (Smt.Subhash Chandrika) has chosen to defend the State action dated 20.07.2009. She has filed a comprehensive written statement and her learned counsel made submissions to justify the release of her land. Interestingly, the plea taken is that the acquisition qua her land has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of 2013 Act and the fresh acquisition can be made only in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act. It is further claimed that the said respondent has constructed a residential house of ‘A’ class construction which cannot be acquired as per the Government policy and once the said house is released, the adjoining vacant land also cannot be utilized for the notified public purpose.

¶212

FINDINGS:

¶213

[70] Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and after going through the Government records, we are of the considered view that the acquisition under challenge deserves to be upheld as none of the grounds taken up by the petitioners can validly sustain. We say so for the reasons that the foremost plea taken by the petitioners revolves around 'hostile discrimination' based upon the fact that the land of

¶214

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 the then local MLA who belonged to the political party in power, was I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶215

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [31]

¶216

ordered to be released through State’s largess. On going through the original records which prompted the then Hon’ble Chief Minister, Haryana, to pass the order dated 20.07.2007, there can be no manner of doubt that the said order is a glaring example of abuse of executive powers and to extend undue favour. Had the State Government insisted on defending its action of releasing the land of family members of the then local MLA Smt.Sumita Singh, there would have been no choice escape but to either quash the entire acquisition or strike down the very root of incurable illegality, namely, the release order itself.

¶217

[71] The location of the land of Smt.Subhash Chandrika and others, as depicted in the lay-out plan/site plan relied upon by the authorities, clearly shows that their big chunk of land falls almost in the middle of the acquired area and it was ordered to be released just like that little realizing that it would single handedily destroy the laudable public purpose for which the acquisition was conceptualized. Such an ex-facie illegal action rightly promoted the petitioners to assert that those who were close and/or were part of corridors of powers have been illegitimately benefited by hoodwinking the law, as if they were above the law of the land.

¶218

[72] We are, however, not required to go into the minute details of the manner in which the representations made by Smt.Subhash Chandrika and others were entertained or accepted, for the reasons that having faced a volley of questions raised by this Court in the past, HSIIDC requested the State Government on 04.03.2014 to review its order dated 20.07.2007. The record further reveals that the aforesaid request was considered in detail and after obtaining opinion from the Advocate General, Haryana, the State Mohinder Kumar KambojGovernment recalled its previous decision on 15.02.2015. Thereafter, on 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶219

[32]

¶220

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶221

07.10.2015, an affidavit in support of the Government decision of recalling the order dated 20.07.2007 and re-acquiring the land of Smt.Subhash Chandrika and others, has been filed by the District Town Planner, HSIIDC, the relevant part whereof reads as follows:

¶222

“....the present bunch of writ petition has been filed by the land owners mainly on the ground that land belonging to Subhash Chandrika has been released by the Government after issuance of Notification under Section 6 on 26.04.2007 even though the said land was lying vacant. So far as land belonging to Subhash Chandrika is concerned, the land measuring 3 bigha 4 biswa comprising in khasra No.9307 on which residential house of Smt.Subhash Chandrika and Sh.Rajnik Singh Maan was in existence was left out at the time of issuance of Notification under Section 6 although lateron the remaining vacant land owned by these persons measuring 47 bigha 15 biswa was decided to be released vide Government's order dated 20.07.2007 after issuance of notification under Section 6 but no Notification under Section 48 was issued pertaining to this land. The Government now vide its decision taken on 16.02.2015 has withdrawn the earlier order dated 20.07.2007 whereby the vacant land belonging to above said two persons was ordered to be released. That beside the above facts approx. 13 bigha land under pucca houses, temple, samadhi, petrol pump, existing industrial unit were released while considering the recommendations of LAC, Karnal at the time of issuance of notification under Section 6.....”

¶223

[73] The very foundation of the apparent discrimination rightly alleged by the petitioners has thus been demolished.

¶224

[74] As regard to the release of other small pieces of land, the Mohinder Kumar Kamboj2016.12.22 15:15 petitioners cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold, for they are the direct I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶225

[33]

¶226

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶227

beneficiaries of such a decision taken on 03.01.2013 as properties/lands of some of them have also been released in part vide the said order. Further, the order dated 03.01.2013 has not been passed mechanically. There are valid reasons given for the release of each property. No fault can therefore be found with the said action of the State Government.

¶228

[75] As regard to the petitioners’ plea that their objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act have not been considered in entirety or in accordance with law, the litmus test to determine this issue is whether the Land Acquisition Collector had applied his mind to such objections keeping in view the public purpose of acquisition or he pre-judged the whole issue and rejected the objections in a mechanical manner? On a perusal of the objections (P-14) filed in the lead case, it is revealed that the petitioners’ main concern was against the closing of their restaurant known as ‘Neelkanth Dhaba’ as it would allegedly cause a loss of Rs.50,000/- per month. They further claimed to have constructed 'cattle shed' where some dairy business was being run and allege that if this business was closed, they would again suffer a loss of Rs.1.0 lac per month. The cost of the construction was also mentioned by them. The Land Acquisition Collector in his report sent to the State Government (P-15) has thoroughly dealt with the objections of every individual and has given his own opinion for acceptance or rejection thereof. He has categorically recorded that he inspected the land notified for acquisition on the spot on 26.06.2006 alongwith a team of revenue officials who were carrying the revenue record with them. The Land Acquisition Collector then opined as follows:-

¶229

“... I have inspected the land notified for acquisition on the spot on 26.06.2006 alongwith Patwari Halqa, Kanogo Halqa, Patwari Land Acquisition and Land Record. After inspection

¶230

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶231

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [34]

¶232

it has been found that on the land for acquisition, there are industrial units on some parts, residential houses on some parts, religious places on some parts, Hotels and Dhabas on some parts, Motor garages are of some parts of the land. Before spot inspection, I have gone through the objection received under Section 5-A of the Acquisition Act and heard the objectors in persons or through counsels.....”

¶233

[76] After classifying the land in different groups as per its user, the Land Acquisition Collector dealt with each group and made his recommendations dated 07.07.2006. His report is sufficiently comprehensive and cannot be termed as a summary or cryptic rejection of the objections.

¶234

[77] It is a fact that the State Government before taking final decision for publication under Section 6 of the Act, also sought comments of HSIIDC on the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector. It may be seen from the HSIIDC’s comments dated 27.09.2006 (P-16) that in 99% of the cases HSIIDC has agreed with the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Collector except in some of the cases where also though it agreed with the Collector’s recommendations but subject to the condition of land-owners offering their land to the Government free of cost for 50 meter green belt alongside NH-1. Only in one case where Land Acquisition Collector recommended sympathetic consideration of release of a hotel, that the HSIIDC opined that “hotel is not a permissible use in the industrial zone.”

¶235

[78] There was thus no difference of opinion between the Collector on one hand and HSIIDC on the other, hence the contention that the State Government was influenced by HSIIDC opinion while taking a final Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15I attest to the accuracy anddecision in the matter, is neither here nor there. integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶236

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [35]

¶237

[79] The question whether or not the State Government could seek comments of the beneficiary of acquisition has been answered by the Full Bench against the petitioners in Ram Murti Sarin’s case (supra), para-24 whereof reads as follows:-

¶238

“....24. However, the State Government in exercise of its executive powers can take report or suggestion from any person or authority including the High Powered Committee before it discharges the statutory functions either before the publication of the notification under Section 6 of the Act or before deciding to withdrawal from acquisition in terms of Section 48 of the Act. But the final order of withdrawal of acquisition has to come from the State Government and not from the High Powered Committee.......”

¶239

[80] There is thus no merit in the plea that the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act were not considered in accordance with law.

¶240

[81] Adverting to the plea raised by some of the petitioners that it is not feasible to develop 50 meter wide green belt alongside NH-1 for want of acquisition in contiguity, it may be true that at some of the spots, the properties of petitioners or similarly placed persons have been released due to which it might not be possible to develop an uninterrupted green belt. The respondents have, as a matter of policy, resolved to acquire only the vacant land alongside NH-1 so as to provide green belt to the extent it is possible. The green belt, may it be in patches, is of paramount necessity to detoxify the adverse effects of unending fast growing traffic on the National Highway on one side and the proposed Industrial Complex on the other side of such green belt. The concern shown by the authorities towards environmental issues in larger public interest deserves precedence over an individual’s hardship.

¶241

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶242

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [36]

¶243

[82] We may now deal with the alternative plea taken by some of the petitioners for the exchange of land. Their learned senior counsel took pains to explain the Map Plan created by using Real Time Aerial Imagery to suggest that there are parcels of lands abutting or behind the running industrial units which have also been acquired and if those lands are given to the petitioners in exchange, it would save the running industries from the hardship of arranging alternative sites for the allied purposes. Having pondered over the submission, we are of the view that such like issues do not fall within the ambit of these writ-proceedings. In the event of exchange, the total acquired area is bound to be reduced. Though it may not affect the final lay-out plan of the Integrated Industrial Complex but whether such lands can be given in exchange or not is an issue which can be considered by the HSIIDC only in consultation with the State Government. In this regard suffice it would be to observe that those petitioners who have set-up industries may represent to the authorities for the exchange of land alongwith the site plans etc. and let their claims be considered by the official respondents subject to such terms and conditions as may be evolved. The rejection or acceptance of such claims shall nevertheless be not taken as fresh cause of action to re-approach this Court. The matter shall be taken to have been finally closed then and there. It shall be appreciated that the representations are decided by the HSIIDC in consultation with the State Government within a period of three months from the date of there submissions.

¶244

[83] We cannot, however, be oblivious of the fact that in some of the cases like CWP Nos.6138 of 2009 and 6279 of 2009, the authorities Mohinder Kumar Kambojhave apparently not acted fairly while releasing a very small portion of the 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶245

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶246

[37]

¶247

land even after acknowledging the fact that in the first case, there is a running 'industrial unit' and in the second case, Vijay Bali has set-up garage etc. The release orders have been passed seemingly to the extent of existing structures only. Some open space for proper utilization of the released properties ought to have been provided to them otherwise it would be difficult for them to run their industrial activities, moreso when the acquired properties are small size plots. We thus direct that wherever the release orders are restricted to the extent of constructed portions only, some open vacant land be also released to enable the beneficiaries to maximize the utility of their released properties.

¶248

[84] As regard to CWP No.3495 of 2015 in which the petitioners have laid challenge to the acquisition of their land measuring 3 kanal 4 marla comprising khasra No.263/1 situated within the revenue estate of village Kambopura, District Karnal, we would have quashed the notification dated 18.12.2014 purportedly issued under Section 6 of the Act (since repealed) on the short ground that after the new Act (2013 Act) came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014, such a notification ought to have acknowledged the applicability of Section 24(1) of the new Act whereunder the land-owners are entitled to seek compensation in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act. However, no such necessity aroses in view of the candid acknowledgement made by the respondents in their written statement dated 16.12.2015 regarding entitlement of the petitioners to seek compensation under the 2013 Act. It is thus clarified that the notification dated 18.12.2014 shall be read alongwith the provisions of 2013 Act. The acquisition of land however, is flaw-less as only the left out area has been subsequently Mohinder Kumar Kambojacquired for the same public purpose for which earlier notifications of the 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶249

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [38]

¶250

years 2006-2007 were issued. The petitioners cannot be held entitled to any other relief except that they shall be entitled to seek compensation and/or other benefits under the 2013 Act.

¶251

CONCLUSIONS :

¶252

[85] In the light of the above discussion, we hold that:-

¶253

(i) the notifications dated 27.04.2006 and 26.04.2007 issued under Sections 4 & 6, respectively, of the Act as well as subsequent proceedings including the Award dated 23.04.2009 are perfectly valid. The writ petitions challenging the said land acquisition process are hereby dismissed;

¶254

(ii) the writ petitioners who seek exchange of land with the HSIIDC, may represent to the Managing Director of HSIIDC within a period of one months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order, alongwith a concrete proposal and such representations shall be considered by the HSIIDC in consultation with the State Government within a period of three months thereafter. The final decision shall not give rise to any fresh cause of action. These directions have been issued keeping in view the fact that the proposal regarding exchange have been submitted by petitioners at a belated stage through miscellaneous applications and the respondents got no opportunity to give their view-point in that regard;

¶255

(iii) in some of the cases like CWP Nos.6138 of 2009 and 6279 of 2009, the released area appears to be confined to the actually constructed area, without any open space. In such like case, the Land Acquisition Collector, District Town Planner and the

¶256

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶257

[39]

¶258

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters

¶259

representative of HSIIDC are directed to re-visit the released sites and wherever it is found that no adequate open space has been provided for proper utilization of the released property, some reasonable open area shall be additionally released. The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶260

(iv) In CWP No.3495 of 2015, the acquisition is upheld but it is held that the petitioner(s) shall be entitled to compensation of the acquired land in accordance with the provisions of 2013 Act.

¶261

(v) As regard to claim of Smt.Subhash Chandrika and her family members to the effect that the provisions of 2013 Act are attracted in her case and the withdrawal of release order dated 20.07.2007 is inconsequential, the contentions are found to be wholly misconceived and mis-directed. Section 24(2) of 2013 Act is attracted only in a case where the Award was passed under the old Act but either the possession was not taken or compensation was not paid for a period of five years from the date of passing of such Award till the new Act came into force w.e.f. 01.01.2014. That is not a situation in the case in hand. So far as the benefit of Section 24(1), namely assessment of compensation as per the new Act is concerned, the said respondent shall be at liberty to claim such benefit before the appropriate forum. She cannot be permitted to seek adjudication of her claim for compensation in accordance with 2013 Act being a respondent in these proceedings. As regard to

¶262

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶263

CWP No.10529 of 2008 and connected matters [40]

¶264

justification of the order dated 20.07.2007, we have already held that the said decision of the State Government was a wholesome mis-use of executive powers and the said decision was in total disregard to the public interest. Respondent No.15, therefore, can draw no advantage out of such an inherently illegal action of the State.

¶265

[86] The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶266

[SURYA KANT]

¶267

JUDGE

¶268

November 07, 2016 [SUDIP AHLUWALIA] mohinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

¶269

Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.12.22 15:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Joginder Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Singh and Ors. 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

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

Jai Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Harbhajan and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hmd Technologies Vs State of Haryana and Others

Pushottam Dass Vs State of Haryana and Others

A New World Hotel Vs State of Haryana and Ors.