Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 10 May, 2022
210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 10.05.2022
CWP-1150-2015
Ramesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CWP-2789-2015
Jagbir Singh and others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CWP-3209-2015
Ashok Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CWP-924-2019
Anita and another ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CWP-32143-2019
Sandeep Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Aakash Vashisth, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate,
Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate,
For the petitioners.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate,
for respondent-Jhajjar Thermal Plant.
Mr. Amit Arora, Senior Panel Counsel,
for respondent-UOI.
Mr. Vikas P.Singh, Advocate,
for respondent-National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd.
Mr. Hitesh Pandit,Advocate,
For respondent-Haryana Power General Corporation Ltd.
*****
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 24-07-2022 12:38:58 :::
CWP-1150-2015
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
Above titled bunch of 05 petitions is being disposed of vide
common order since facts as well as issues involved therein are similar.
2. The instant writ proceedings herein are for issuance of a writ in
the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-15)
passed by Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar whereby representation submitted
by the petitioners were disposed of on the ground that benefit of
Rehabilitation & Resettlement (R&R) Policy dated 09.11.2010 (Annexure P-
8) cannot be extended to the petitioners because award dated 12.07.2007
(Annexure P-6) is prior to 07.09.2010
3. Succinct factual narrative first. For the sake of brevity, same is
being taken from CWP-1150-2015.
4. Notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act, 1894
was issued proposing to acquire 3,952Kanal-5Marla of the land for public
purpose namely, for construction of Mahatma Gandhi Thermal Power Plant,
Khanpur, District Jhajjar. Subsequently, vide notification under Section 6 of
the Act, 1894 issued on 13.11.2007 land was reduced to 3,412 Kanal-4Marla.
Late award dated 20.11.2008 was also rendered/disbursed. Another
Notification dated 13.11.2007 under Section 4 followed by section 6 for the
same purpose in the same village for land measuring 312K-5M=39 acres-0K-
5M was issued, qua which award was announced on 05.12.2008.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) submits that on one hand the
very source of survival i.e. land has been taken away, on the other, 6-7 years
have passed without providing alternative source of livelihood/rehabilitation.
2 of 7
CWP-1150-2015
Owing to inaction of the State authorities, another earlier CWP-9541 of 2013
was filed and vide order dated 27.05.2014 (Annexure P-13) respondent No.4
was directed to decide the representation of the petitioners. Same was
disposed of by respondent No.4 vide the impugned order dated 20.11.2014
(Annexure P-15). Hence, the second foray of writ proceedings.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that several oustees
whose land was acquired vide award announced on 12.07.2007 (Annexure
P-6), that is much before the cut-off date, i.e., 07.09.2010 in Policy
(Annexure P8), have already been offered appointments, whereas identically
placed claims of the petitioners have been illegally denied by respondent
No.4, by passing the impugned order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-15).
7. It is a case where State has got itself into a piquant situation of
having publicly offered/promised a quid pro quo vide a policy dated
09.11.2010 (Annexure P-8) and thereafter backing out from its part of the
performance. What has been argued by the learned State counsel is totally
contra to what is envisaged in the policy ibid, as noted here in after.
8. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would, therefore, be
appropriate to reproduce the relevant Clause 11 of the policy ibid as below: -
"11. Benefits for the affected persons whose land is acquired
for infrastructure projects other than those of HUDA, HSIIDC
and the HSAMB:
i) While provision has been made for allotment of 'oustee
category plots' in case of land acquired for development
by HUDA, HSIIDC, and the HSAMB and for allotment
of commercial sites/industrial plots in case of those
landowners whose 75% land gets acquired (subject to a
minimum of one acre) for these organizations, extension
of these additional benefits in case of the landowners
whose land is acquired for public purposes other than
these organizations, has not been found feasible. To that
extent, it is also fortuitous.
3 of 7
CWP-1150-2015
ii) In order to balance this situation and partially
compensate the landowners in this category, it has been
decided that wherever 75% or more land of a landowner
in a revenue estate, subject to a minimum of two acres,
is acquired for other infrastructure projects, and thereby
impacting his sustenance to a considerable extent, one
dependent of the land-owing family would be provided a
job in the Government or its Boards/Corporations/State
PSUs in Group 'D' and Group 'C' categories, subject to
the incumbent fulfilling the qualifications prescribed for
such posts;
iii) Recognising that certain persons may indulge in large
scale division of their holdings to acquire title to
government jobs in this process, the entitlement of
dependants would be based on the revenue records of
four years prior to the date of issue of Notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act or a
corresponding provision in other statutes;"
9. Concededly, the land of the petitioners herein was acquired by
the State Government vide notification dated 09.04.2007 and at the relevant
time, the policy aforesaid held the field. It cannot therefore, be argued that
being subsequent in time, petitioners cannot seek benefit thereof.
10. Having heard the competing arguments of the learned counsels, I
am of the view that subject to the fulfillment of the requirement of the policy
ibid, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit as envisaged therein.
11. Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for
Power Plant have strenuously tried to persuade me that qua the land in
question acquired from the petitioners, the policy supra is not applicable on
the following grounds:
(A) At the relevant time, land was acquired for two different Power Plants
and land of the petitioners is qua Mahatma Gandhi Super Thermal
Power Plant on, for which the policy is not applicable;
(B) Some of the petitioners are trying to take advantage of the policy by
misreading the same, as if for every two acres one person is to be given
4 of 7
CWP-1150-2015
the job.Whereas, what is envisaged is regardless of the chunk of land
acquired, what has to be seen is that only those who have minimum of
two acres are to be given the job;
(C) Some of the petitioners are overreaching the intent policy by
nominating even their children and/or grand-children for seeking
Government job, who were not even born or minors at the relevant
time/as on the date of the land acquisition/notices were issued.
12. Adverting now to the aforesaid arguments. Last one first.
12.1. As regards the allegation that some petitioners are nominating
those who are not entitled, it is made clear that the petitioners' case will be
strictly dealt with subject to their fulfilling other requirements as envisaged in
the policy. Only after verifying the revenue records, of the preceding 4 years
prior to the date of issuance of the land acquisition notices, persons found
entitled to apply for job shall be given benefit of the same.
Needless to say, that those mentioned in the revenue records,
only they shall be entitled to seek benefit of the job in terms of the policy,
provided, as already stated, they are held eligible otherwise.
12.2. Coming now to the alleged misuse of the policy by those who
had multiple chunks of land measuring two acres each. It is made clear that
regardless of the area of the land, only one job will be offered per acquisition
as long as the land meets the criteria of minimum two acres. Illustratively,
even if a petitioner is owner of 8 acres of land, it is made clear that he will
not be entitled to seek four jobs by calculating it on the basis of one job per
two acres. It is not the import of the policy to provide multiple jobs to one
owner merely because he owns a larger chunk than 2 acres. In any case, in
5 of 7
CWP-1150-2015
course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, under instructions,
submit that none of the petitioners will seek more than one job, regardless of
land size being more than two acres.
12.3. Argument of learned state counsel, that the policy is not
applicable to the Thermal plant in question, flies in the face of Sub-Clause-(i)
of Clause 11.A bare perusal thereof depicts no ambiguity. It clearly states that
policy is applicable to all those oustees whose land has been acquired for
development other than those of HUDA, HSIIDC and HSAMB. Reasons are
not far to seek. Since those, whose land has been acquired for development
either by HUDA or HSIIDC and/or HSAMB, have already taken benefit
under the oustees scheme from HUDA or HSIIDC and/or HSAMB, as the
case may be. Having already taken advantage in past of the fortuitous
benefits, they cannot stand in the queue all over again, merely because they
own additional land which too has been acquired by the Government for the
purpose of development.
Accordingly, it is made clear that if any of the petitioners has
taken advantage of accepting job in past, for acquisition of his land by
HUDA, HSIIDC and HSAMB, he shall not be entitled to seek the incidental
benefit for the second time, owing to the acquisition of his land for the Power
Plant.
13. In the parting, at the cost of repetition, I would like to re-
emphasize that repeated arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the
respondents, after hearing my above dictation in the open court, that at the
relevant time, the policy discussed by me hereinabove, was not applicable,
are being noted again only to be rejected. Specific averments given in the
6 of 7
CWP-1150-2015
petition and relevant record appended in support thereof would show that the
land acquired for the other power plant, which was prior in time,
oustees/landowners have been given the benefit of the policy (supra) qua the
same. I see no reason as to why the petitioners, on parity, be also not
accorded similar treatment. More so, when all of land in question was
acquired for setting up the two adjoining power plants. It is not disputed that
entire chunk of land for both the power plants is contiguous, but for a road
dividing the two.
14. As an upshot of the above discussion, the respondents shall
proceed afresh with the cases of the petitioners in accordance with the
policy,ibid. They shall keep in mind the reasoning/observations contained in
the preceding paras of this order/ judgment. Needful be done within a period
of 3 months from today.
15. Disposed of accordingly.
16. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
17. Photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case files.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
10.05.2022
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
7 of 7
