Dismissed

Ajay Sehrawat v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Apr 2024CWP/17141/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged land acquisition notifications and sought exemption for constructions allegedly raised before the Section 4 notification. The Court held the constructions were unsanctioned, publication in newspapers gave adequate notice, compensation was deposited, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ajay Sehrawat Vs State of Haryana — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

2024:PHHC:053556-DB

¶2

CWP No. 17141 of 1998

¶3

-1-

¶4

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶5

(102) CWP No.17141 of 1998(O&M) Date of Decision: 22.04.2024

Ajay Sahrawat

.....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA

¶11

Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional A.G. Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. ****

¶13

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner asks for the quashing of Annexure P-5, Annexure whereof is a notification dated 22.07.1996 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act of 1894’), besides he seeks the quashing of declaration dated 17.07.1997 issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 Annexure P-6.

¶15

The ground as is raised in the instant petition for quashing the said notifications, which resulted in an award being drawn on 30.12.1998, is premised on the ground that the constructions which became raised on the subject lands, thus were raised prior to the issuance of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, whereby in terms of the relevant policies, the said constructions were required to be released or exempted from acquisition. Consequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner argues with much rigour before this Court that the non-application of the said policy to the subject lands, whereas, the said policy becoming applied to

¶16

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.25 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CWP No. 17141 of 1998 -22024:PHHC:053556-DB

¶18

similarly situated land-owners concerned, thereby he contends that the acquiring authority has, in fact, done invidious discrimination against the present petitioner.

¶19

The present petitioner uncontrovertedly raised objections under Section 5-A of the Act of 1894 against the acquisition of the subject lands as became launched through the notifications supra. However, the said objections became declined. The declining of the said objections became rested on the ground, thus as revealed on a reading of paragraph 2 of the reply on affidavit furnished to the writ petition by co-respondent No.2, that only one room measuring 12 ft. x 10 ft. of class-C construction and boundary wall were existing at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, therebys the further constructions, if any, as were made thereons, thus were made post the issuance of a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, therebys the said raised constructions were not amenable to become released or exempted from the acquisition, thus on the ground that on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, there is complete vestment of right, title or interest in the acquiring authority over the acquired lands, besides there was concomitant divestment of right, title or interest thereovers qua the present petitioner.

¶20

Be that as it may, since the acquiring authority did require, rather for the relevant public purpose, the left-over land of the present petitioner, thereby through a notification for acquisition cast under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, thus becoming issued on 22.07.1996, thus resultantly the said left-over land of the petitioner became contemplated to become subjected to public use.

¶21

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.25 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶22

CWP No. 17141 of 1998 -32024:PHHC:053556-DB

¶23

Though, in the instant writ petition, no challenge is made to the said issued notification, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the issuance of the said notification is also flawed and has orally prayed before this Court that the said issued notification besides the consequent thereto award, if any, as become made be also quashed and set aside, rather on the abovesaid ground. The said argument becomes premised on the ground that in terms of the relevant policies, the constructions which were existing on the said lands, did become to be raised thereovers, thus, prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, and as such, in terms of the relevant policies, the said constructions were required to be released from acquisition.

¶24

In so far as the said contention is raised, it has been clearly spelt out in paragraph 5 of the reply on affidavit furnished to the instant writ petition before this Court by co-respondent No.2, that the said construction as relate to the above lands, was thus made, rather without any sanction being granted by the competent authority. The said contention has not been repelled by the petitioner through his placing on record any sanction becoming granted by the competent authority. Resultantly, the said contention is deemed to acquire merit, therebys any claim for release or exemption from acquisition of those constructions which became raised in violation of the relevant rules and regulations, rather cannot be ordered to be released, even if assumingly they were raised in contemporaneity or prior to the issuance of a notification on 22.07.1996, wherebys the remainder of the petitioner’s land was subjected to acquisition. Furthermore, it is also being stated in paragraph 6 of the reply on affidavit furnished to the instant writ petition, that the subject lands became acquired for the apposite public

¶25

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.25 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

CWP No. 17141 of 1998 -42024:PHHC:053556-DB

¶27

purpose, as the same falls in the road and green belt area of Section 37 at Gurgaon. If so, the subject lands become an integral component of the layout plans and, therebys they do subserve the relevant public purpose, therefore, this Court deems it not fit and appropriate to tinker with the layout plans as have been prepared by the Engineering Cell of the acquiring authority.

¶28

Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued, that neither any adequate publicity became given to the notification for acquisition nor the present petitioner became aware of such issued notification, therebys he contends that he had no opportunity, if any, to raise objections to the acquisition proceedings, that became launched at the instance of the acquiring authority.

¶29

However, even the above made submissions before this Court loses its vigour, rather in the light of contentions becoming raised in the preliminary objection No.1 as carried in the reply on affidavit furnished to the instant writ petition by co-respondent No.2, wherein, it has been clearly spelt, out that a munadi in respect of the subject lands was made, through Jai Singh Chowkidar and was also entered in the roznamcha . Furthermore, it has also been spelt therein that the contents of the notification were got printed and published in two local daily newspapers i.e. the Pioneer (English) dated 31.07.1997 and in J.V.S. Times (Hindi) dated 30.07.1997. The printing and publication of the notification supra in the above newspapers are deemed to but bring knowledge to the present petitioner about the launching of acquisition of subject lands at the instance of the acquiring authority, yet his failing to raise objections theretos, does not assign any leverage to the present petitioner, to argue that he was either

¶30

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.25 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶31

CWP No. 17141 of 1998 -52024:PHHC:053556-DB

¶32

unaware of the launching of the acquisition proceedings nor he can make any argument before this Court, that he could not raise any objection in terms of the Section 5-A of the Act of 1894, before the competent authority. 9. Since it is stated at the bar by the learned Additional Advocate General, that compensation as has been determined in respect of the land acquired under the notifications supra, as became issued respectively in the year 1997 and in the year 1997, besides when he also submits that the award which became rendered in pursuance thereof also had resulted in the compensation amounts as determined thereunders, to become deposited before the competent authority. Resultantly, when therebys the said deposited sums of compensation are amenable to become released to the present petitioner. In sequel, the launching of acquisition proceedings cannot be termed to be expropriatory.

¶33

Finding no merit in the writ petition, but with the above observations, this Court dismisses the instant writ petition along with all pending applications, if any. No order as to costs.

¶34

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

¶35

(LALIT BATRA) JUDGE

¶36

April 22, 2024 d.gulati Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶37

DIWAKER GULATI 2024.04.25 12:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Ajay Sehrawat v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ajay Sehrawat v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganga Ram Deceased through Lrs Vs State of Punjab and Others

Narinder Singh (Deceased) through His Lrs. Vs Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Punjab and Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sushil Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mahender Saini and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.