Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rameshwar vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 18 April, 2024
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Lalit Batra
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051364-DB
CWP-20553-2016 -1-
2024:PHHC:051364-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP-20553-2016
Reserved on: 04.04.2024
Pronounced on: 18.04.2024
RAMESHWAR
.....Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
Argued by: Mr. Anil Dutt, Advocate for
Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG Haryana with
Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for quashing of notification (Annexure P-4) issued on 17.11.2005, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894"); and notification (Annexure P-5) issued on 07.02.2006, under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, besides prays for quashing of impugned order dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-8).
2. The impugned notifications are claimed to become lapsed by the petitioner, thus by virtue of the Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013").
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 11:20:56 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051364-DB CWP-20553-2016 -2- 2024:PHHC:051364-DB
3. The Government of Haryana through the impugned notifications acquired lands, measuring 2006.50 acres, for public purpose namely Development of Sectors 65 to 68, Sonepat (Rajiv Gandhi Education City).
4. Through an order made on 14.12.2016, in the instant writ petition, this Court allowed the petition and the acquisition proceedings were declared to have become lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The said verdict was challenged by the Government of Haryana before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing SLP (C) No.35398 of 2017, which was converted into Civil Appeal No.2119 of 2023.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the contesting litigants, consensually submit before this Court that the instant petition is covered by paragraph Nos. 3 and 7 of the verdict made, on 11.04.2023, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the Civil Appeal (supra), paragraphs whereof are extracted hereinafter.
"3. In all these appeals, the issue relates to the first category, namely, where before the High Court, the original writ petitioners challenged the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894, which, as such, were filed much prior to the Act, 2013 came into force and submitted the amendment applications for the relief of deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the grounds that neither the possession was taken over nor the compensation was paid/tendered. Without deciding the writ petitions on merits on other grounds, more particularly the grounds on which the acquisition/acquisition proceedings under the Act, 1894 were under challenge, solely relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 11:20:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051364-DB CWP-20553-2016 -3- 2024:PHHC:051364-DB has allowed the writ petitions and has declared that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
4, 5, 6. xxx
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the civil appeals as per para 3 of this judgment, arising out of the impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 4015/2006 and other allied writ petitions are allowed. The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is/are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the matters are remitted back to the High Court to decide and dispose of the main writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits on other issues except the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. We request the High Court to finally decide and dispose of the writ petitions on remand at the earliest and preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the present order. All contentions and defences which are available to the respective parties are kept open to be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on their own merits (except the submission of applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013)."
6. Through an order of 11.04.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted the matters to this High Court, thus to decide and dispose of the writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits, on other issues except the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Therefore, this Court is in terms of the directions contained in the said paragraphs, thus required to decide and dispose of the instant writ petition afresh in accordance with law, and, on its own merits and issues. However, though the Hon'ble Apex 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 11:20:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051364-DB CWP-20553-2016 -4- 2024:PHHC:051364-DB Court in terms of the above extracted paragraphs, has declared that the instant writ petition be decided afresh excepting the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, to the instant writ petition.
7. Be that as it may, yet this Court is required to be considering the validity of the rejection order passed by the competent authority on 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-8).
8. A reading of Annexure P-8 discloses, that it was made in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court in CWP-25132-2014. The operative para of the said directions are extracted hereinafter.
"In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of by granting liberty to petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as are available to him before the appropriate authority. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioner within a period of two months from today, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim before the concerned authority. Till the matter is decided by the said authority, status quo shall be maintained by the parties. It is, however, made clear that in case no such representation is filed within the stipulated period as noticed above, the interim order shall cease to operate, thereafter."
9. Through the said order the claim raised by the petitioner for his estate/land being released from acquisition became rejected.
10. The reason for not releasing the petitioner's lands/ constructions becomes banked upon the said constructions being raised on the acquired lands 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 11:20:57 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051364-DB CWP-20553-2016 -5- 2024:PHHC:051364-DB prior to the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, besides becomes founded upon the factum, that the said constructions are an integral component of the layout cum demarcation plan. Moreover, when it is also stated therein, that the development works on the acquired lands have been completed.
11. Resultantly, since the order rejecting the petitioner's claim for releasing his lands/constructions from acquisition, thus became founded upon the well made premise (supra). Consequently, when the preparation of the layout plan is done through employments of the expertise of the Engineering Cell concerned. Therefore, the expertise employed by the Engineering Cell of the Acquiring Authority concerned, rather is not required to be tinkered with. Since the inclusions thereins vis-a-vis the constructions made over the acquired lands by the present petitioner, rather do thereby further and facilitate the public purpose. Moreover, when the said public purpose is spoken in the impugned order (Annexure P-8) to become completed through development works being made thereons. Resultantly, at this belated stage, this Court does not deem it fit, and, appropriate to release the lands/constructions of the petitioner.
12. Hence, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition, hence the same is dismissed.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE (LALIT BATRA) 18.04.2024 JUDGE Ithlesh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 11:20:57 :::