Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 1 February, 2022
(1)
CWP No.5379 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.5379 of 2016
Pronounced on: 01.02.2022
Ram Lal & others
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with
Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate, for the respondents.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
By filing the present writ petition, petitioners have
challenged notification dated 26.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
'1894 Act'), notification dated 25.09.2008 (Annexure P-2) issued under
Section 6 of the 1894 Act and the award dated 24.09.2010 (Annexure
P-6).
2. Counsel for the petitioners asserts that the petitioners are
assailing the acquisition proceedings qua the land measuring 2 Bigha and
13 Biswa comprised in Khasra No.31/2 situated in village Bhagwanpur,
Tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula, as their land measuring 3 Bigha and 10
Biswa has already been left out from the acquisition after considering the
objections filed by them under Section 5-A of 1894 Act and in pursuance
1 of 9
CWP No.5379 of 2016
to the recommendations made by the State Joint Inspection Committee
(for short 'SJIC'). Counsel for the petitioners asserts that on the land in
question, houses of the petitioners are existing, which they had
constructed much prior to the acquisition proceedings and till date, they
are in physical possession of the same. Reliance has been placed upon
the policy of the Government of Haryana dated 26.10.2007 (Annexure P-
7) to substantiate that along with the constructed house, proportionate
vacant area is to be kept out of the acquisition proceedings. In support of
his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance
upon the decision of this Court dated 28.04.2021 (Annexure P-8) given
in LPA No.68 of 2008, titled as 'State of Haryana Vs. Kamlesh Rani.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that some land of the petitioners has
already been kept out of the acquisition on the ground that construction in
the shape of residential houses existed thereon. He, therefore, submits
that the land of the petitioners measuring 2 Bigha and 13 Biswa
comprised in Khasra No.31/2 situated in village Bhagwanpur, Tehsil
Kalka, District Panchkula, be also released and acquisition proceedings
qua the said land be quashed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the father of petitioner No.1 and father-in-law of petitioner
No.2, namely Dhanna Ram, had filed objections under Section 5-A of
1894 Act. Mother of petitioners No.3 to 5, namely Smt. Kesho, had also
filed objections. The said objections were duly heard from 27.05.2008 to
29.05.2008 at PWD Rest House, Kalka and considering the same, land
2 of 9
CWP No.5379 of 2016
measuring 3 Bigha and 10 Biswa was recommended for release as there
were residential houses constructed at the time of issuance of notification
under Section 4 of 1894 Act and remaining land, which was vacant at that
time, was recommended for acquisition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the
possession of the land in question was taken vide Rapat No.72, dated
24.09.2010. It has further been asserted that the total amount of the
award of Rs.2,59,77,50,090/- was tendered and out of the same, an
amount of Rs.1,69,27,40,159/- has already been disbursed. Rest of the
amount could not be disbursed as the concerned landowners are not
coming forward to receive the same and not tendering the documents
regarding ownership etc. Further, as per the award statement, total
amount of compensation of the petitioners is Rs.1,34,63,885/-, which is
still pending as the petitioners are not coming forward to receive the same
and not tendering the requisite documents. The said amount would be
disbursed to the petitiones immediate on their demand and submitting
their documents.
5. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Aflatoon & others Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi &
others 1975 (4) SCC 285 to contend that the petitioners cannot be
allowed to raise this plea when the notifications under Sections 4 and 6
have never been challenged nor has the validity of the award been
attacked. There being dilatory tactics on the part of the petitioners, the
writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches
3 of 9
CWP No.5379 of 2016
on the part of the petitioners. Similarly, reliance has been placed upon
another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Northern Indian
Glass Industries Vs. Jaswant Singh & others 2003 (1) SCC 335, where
writ petition was filed after almost 17 years of finalization of the
acquisition proceedings when the said proceedings have not been
challenged earlier and it being the settled proposition of the law that after
the passing of the award and after taking possession of the land, the
acquired land vests with the Government free from all incumbrances.
Delay and laches is itself a ground for dismissing the writ petition. It has,
in any case, been pressed by the counsel that the land of the petitioners is
essential for green belt, which is the part of the planning of the road and
the same would be effected.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon
the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others 2020 (AIR) SC
1496 to submit that the land cannot be released from acquisition if
possession of the acquired land, for which the award has been passed, has
been taken through Rapat Roznamacha or even the amount of
compensation tendered. In this case, possession of the land in question
was taken vide Rapat No.72, dated 24.09.2010 and even the
compensation amount stands deposited, which the petitioners have not
taken. He, therefore, submits that the land in question cannot be released.
7. His further submission is that since the land in question
affects the site of 12 meters wide service lane to the main road, the same
4 of 9
CWP No.5379 of 2016
cannot be released. Since the compensation amount has been duly
deposited with the Land Acquisition Collector and further, the possession
has been taken vide Rapat No.72, dated 24.09.2010, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the
pleadings as well as the various judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
9. The facts, as have been narrated above, have not been
disputed. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act were
issued on 26.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) and 25.09.2008 (Annexure P-2)
respectively, leading to the passing of the award dated 24.09.2010
(Annexure P-6). Petitioners are asserting themselves to be the owners in
possession of the land measuring 2 Bigha and 13 Biswa comprised in
Khasra No.31/2 situated in village Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Kalka, District
Panchkula, and are seeking release of the same from acquisition.
10. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that on the land in question, houses of the petitioners existed prior to the
issuance of notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act, cannot be accepted
in the light of the specific stand taken by the respondents in the reply that
after hearing and considering the objections filed by Dhanna Ram and
Smt.Kesho, predecessors of the petitioners, land measuring 3 Bigha and
10 Biswa was released on the same ground that houses existed thereon
prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 194 Act and
5 of 9
CWP No.5379 of 2016
remaining land was recommended for acquisition as the same was lying
vacant. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to produce any
documentary evidence which would show that the houses of the
petitioners were in existence on the land in question prior to issuance of
notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act. Merely by placing on record
two photographs (Annexures P-9 and P-10) to prove that houses of the
petitioners were in existence on the land in question at the time of
acquisition cannot substantiate that the said houses were existed prior to
issuance of notification under Section 4 or even constructed on the land
in question or on some other land. Petitioners have not been able to place
on record any document in support of this argument and having failed to
do so, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be
accepted especially when their land measuring 3 Bigha and 10 Biswa has
been left out of acquisition on the same ground that certain houses were
in existence prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894
Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also been unable to explain
as to how some land of the petitioners could be released on the ground
that there being houses existed prior to issuance of notification while
acquiring the adjacent land and not releasing it, had there been any
construction thereon. If the houses would have been constructed on the
land in question prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4, the
land in question would have also been released along with the land which
has been recommended for release i.e. 3 Bigha and 10 Biswa.
For the above mentioned facts and reasons, petitioners would
6 of 9
CWP No.5379 of 2016
not be entitled to any benefit of the policy of the Government of Haryana
dated 26.10.2007 (Annexure P-7) and the decision of this Court dated
28.04.2021 (Annexure P-8) given in LPA No.68 of 2008, titled as 'State
of Haryana Vs. Kamlesh Rani', on which reliance has been placed by
them.
11. Further, it has been specifically stated in the reply which has
been filed to this writ petition that the possession of the land in question
has already been taken vide Rapat No.72, dated 24.09.2010. It has also
been stated that the total amount of the award of Rs.2,59,77,50,090/- was
tendered and out of the same, an amount of Rs.1,69,27,40,159/- has
already been disbursed and rest of the amount could not be disbursed as
the concerned landowners are not coming forward to receive the same or
are not tendering the documents regarding ownership etc. As per the
award statement, total amount of compensation of the petitioners is
Rs.1,34,63,885/-, which stands deposited and is still pending as the
petitioners are not coming forward to receive the same and not tendering
the requisite documents. The said amount would be disbursed to the
petitioners immediately on their demand and submitting their documents.
12. Paras 244 and 245 of the judgment in Indore Development
Authority's case (supra) deal with the vesting of the land in the State on
taking of possession of the acquired land for which the award has been
passed free from encumbrances. The taking of possession through Rapat
Roznamacha entry has been held to be a valid mode of taking possession
of land. The person retaining possession thereafter is to be treated as a
7 of 9
CWP No.5379 of 2016
trespasser as he does not have any right to continue in possession of the
land, which has vested in the State. Possession of the land has been taken
vide Rapat Roznamacha No.72, dated 24.09.2010, thus, fulfilling one of
the conditions with regard to the possession having been taken over
especially in the light of the fact that the possession through rapat
roznamacha has been held to be valid mode of taking possession of the
land.
13. Para 203 of the judgment in Indore Development Authority's
case (supra) deals with the word 'paid' and it has been concluded in para
206 that when the amount has been tendered, the obligation has been
fulfilled by the Collector. In case a person does not collect the amount,
he cannot take the benefit of the same by asserting that the amount has
not been paid to him.
14. It may also be added here that the petitioners themselves have
admitted in para 5 of the writ petition that a Reference under Section 18
of 1894 Act has been filed by petitioners No.1 and 2 before the
Competent Court for enhancement of compensation amount, which
would not entitle them to release the land in question. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in para 363 (5) of the judgment in Indore Development
Authority's case (supra), has held that the landowners, who have filed a
reference for higher compensation, cannot claim release of their land and
therefore, the petitioners cannot be held eligible for claiming the said
benefit.
15. Further, in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
8 of 9
CWP No.5379 of 2016
Court in the cases of Aflatoon and Northern Indian Glass Industries
(supra), the present petition is not maintainable as the impugned
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act have never been
challenged by the petitioners and the present petition has been filed after
about 6 years of the finalization of the acquisition proceedings. The
petitioners should have approached this Court immediately after the
issuance of notification dated 25.09.2008 (Annexure P-2) under Section 6
when the land in question was recommended for acquisition. It appears
to be the delaying tactics on the part of the petitioners to continue in
illegal possession when the land stands vested in the Government free
from all incumbrances and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
16. That apart, since the land in question affects the site of 12
meters wide service lane, which is essential for public purpose and thus,
the same cannot be released as it would directly affect the planning.
17. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present
writ petition and therefore, dismiss the same.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
01.02.2022 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
Harish
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
9 of 9
