Punjab-Haryana High Court
Savita Devi vs State Of Haryana & Ano on 21 March, 2022
CWP Nos. 12140 and 12164-2016 -1-
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 21.03.2022
1. CWP-12140-2016
Savita Devi ....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
2. CWP-12164-2016
Jai Narain and another ....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and another ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA
Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl.A.G., Haryana with
Mr. Saurabh Mago, A.A.G., Haryana.
****
Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral).
This order shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP-12140-
2016 and CWP-12146-2016 having an identical issue. However, facts are
being extracted from CWP-12140-2016.
The petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus for declaring
acquisition proceedings to have lapsed as per Section 24(2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2013') and
direction to the respondents to release her land as the respondents have
released the land of other private colonizers, developers and land owners
vide order dated 06.01.2009 (Annexure P-9), order dated 26.08.2010
(Annexure P-10), order dated 28.04.2011 (Annexure P-11), order dated
31.12.2010 (Anexure P-12) and order dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure P-13).
1 of 5
The petitioner is owner in possession of land measuring 3
kanals 8 marlas being half share in land comprising in Khasra No. 45//5/2/1
(3-8), 6/2/1 (1/12) and 46//21/2 (1/15) situated in the revenue estate of
Baroli Tehsil and District Faridabad. Government of Haryana vide
notification dated 1.5.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") followed by notification dated 30.4.2007
under Section 6 of the Act, acquired the land including the land of the
petitioner for the development of residential and commercial Sectors 75 and
80, Urban Estate, Faridabad. The respondents have issued license/CLU to
the private builders after passing the award in the same area. The grievance
of the petitioner is that the respondents cannot utilize the land of the
petitioner in any manner. Further, the respondents have released most of the
land of the private colonizers and developers and land owners vide order
dated 06.01.2009 (Annexure P-9), order dated 26.08.2010 (Annexure P-10),
order dated 28.04.2011 (Annexure P-11), order dated 31.12.2010 (Anexure
P-12) and order dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure P-13). The petitioner is still in
physical possession of the land in dispute. No compensation has been paid
to her. According to the petitioner, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed
in view of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. Hence, the present writ petition.
In para 29 of the writ petition, reference has been made to a
similarly situated land owner Braham Dutt son of Mattan Lal, who had
filed CWP-10057-2015 titled as Braham Dutt vs. State of Haryana and
others and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated
26.05.2015 (Annexure P-15) by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a
detailed and comprehensive representation to the respondents for release of
the land within a period of one month and the same was to be decided by the
2 of 5
respondents by passing a speaking order within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of representation.
After notice of motion, written statement dated 09.01.2017 was
filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate Department, Haryana,
Faridabad on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. The respondents have also
placed on record a layout plan (Annexure R-1) to show that the petitioner
has 8 no. plot of 10 Marla category and the area is reserved for E.W.S.
housing in Sector 75 Fariadabad. It is further stated that petitioner had not
filed any objection under Section 5A of the Act, and hence the petitioner is
not entitled for any relief.
On 21.03.2022, learned counsel for the State has placed on
record a speaking order dated 28.04.2016 passed in compliance of order
dated 26.05.2015 (Annexure P-15) passed in Braham Dutt's case (supra).
The said order is taken on record as Annexure R-2. A perusal of the said
order shows that the representation made by the petitioner-Braham Dutt
seeking relief under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 has
been dismissed by the Zonal Committee after granting him personal hearing.
It is observed in the said order that provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act,
2013 shall apply only in those cases in which the award by the Land
Acquisition Collector was announced five years or more prior to
commencement of the Act meaning thereby on or before 31.12.2008. Since
the award was announced on 24.04.2009, the case of Braham Dutt does not
fall within the ambit of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. He has also placed
on record speaking order dated 03.12.2018 (which is taken on record as
Annexure R-3), whereby after passing order dated 28.04.2016, the petitioner
Braham Dutt, again requested for release of his land in reference of which,
3 of 5
hearings were afforded to him by the Additional Chief Secretary to
Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning and Urban Estate
Department, Panchkula and, thereafter, detailed speaking order was passed
on 03.12.2018 by observing that at the time of issuance of notification under
Section 4 of the Act, no construction existed and that compensation has
been deposited in the Court of ADJ, Faridabad for the total land of 66
Kanala 02 Marla alongwith khasra No. 50//26(1-6). Since the land of the
applicant-Braham Dutt affects planning of Sector i.e. sector roads, internal
roads, residential plots, old age home and green space of Sectors 75 and 80,
Faridabad and part payment has already been sent to ADJ Court, the
applicant-Braham Dutt has a remedy only to apply under land pooling
policy. In view of the said observation, the recommendations of the
constituted Zonal Committee sent vide office letter memo no. 5694-95 dated
06.06.2018, have been approved by the competent authority i.e.
Government of Haryana, whose decision was conveyed vide letter memo
no. 6594-98 dated 27.08.2018 and the representation for release of the land
of the applicant-Braham Dutt was disposed of.
A perusal of order dated 28.04.2016 (Annexure R-2) and
speaking order dated 03.12.2018 (Annexure R-3) shows that the case of the
similarly situated land owner i.e. Braham Dutt has been consistently
rejected and liberty was granted to him to apply under land pooling policy.
Learned counsel for the State has also referred judgment passed
by this Court in CWP-8346-2009 titled as Jagat Pal and others Vs. State of
Haryana and others, decided on 16.05.2019. While dismissing the said
writ petition, reference has been made to a Division Bench judgment passed
in CWP-18900 of 2008 titled as Sis Ram Vs. State of Haryana , 2010 SCC
4 of 5
OnLine P&H 11945. In Sis Ram's case (supra), this Court was
considering release of land situated in Sectors 75 and 80, Faridabad, from
acquisition. In the said case, the petitioners had not filed objection under
Section 5-A of the Act. The writ petition was dismissed keeping in view
that no objection was filed by the land owners/petitioners and policy framed
by the Government to grant change of land use was not challenged whereby
a certificate for development of colonies was issued to the developers under
that policy.
In the present case as well, the petitioner had not filed any
objection under Section 5-A of the Act. The acquisition proceedings with
respect to Sectors 75 and 80 have been upheld by the judgment passed in
Sis Ram's case (supra), Jagat Pal's case (supra) and even in the case of
Braham Dutt, release of land had been rejected while passing order dated
28.04.2016 (Annexure R-2) and speaking order dated 03.12.2018
(Annexure R-3).
Keeping in view of above observations made, no case to
entertain these petitions is made out.
Writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
(RITU BAHRI)
JUDGE
21.03.2022 (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
5 of 5
