Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharam Pal And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 29 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114467-DB
CWP-6522-1990 (O&M) -1-
2023:PHHC:111961-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-6522-1990 (O&M)
Reserved on: 23.08.2023
Date of decision: 29.08.2023
DHARAM PAUL AND OTHERS
...Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG Haryana with
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. The petitioners asked for the hereinafter reliefs to be granted to
them.
"a) To issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the
impugned notifications dated 21.4.1987 (Annexure P.1)
and dated 20.4.1988 (Annexure P.3) issued under
sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, qua Killa Nos. mentioned of Rectangle No.43
situated within the revenue estate of Patti Jhambra,
Shahbad, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
b) To issue a writ of Mandamus against respondents
NO.2 directing him to forbear from making the award
qua the land of Killa Nos. mentioned above of Rectangle
No.43 on the basis of the impugned notifications
Annexures P.1 & P.3.
c) To issue any other appropriate writ, order or
direction."
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114467-DB
CWP-6522-1990 (O&M) -2-
2023:PHHC:111961-DB
2. The disputed lands are comprised in Killa No.5/2/2(0-12),
4/2(0-6), 4/4(0-2), 7/2(0-4), 7/4(0-6), 5/2/1(0-3), 4/3(0-5) of Rectangle
No.43 situated within the revenue estate of Patti Jhambra, Shahbad, Tehsil
Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
3. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1984"), became issued on
21.4.1987, and, was succeeded by a declaration made on 20.04.1988 under
Section 6 of the Act of 1894. Moreover, in respect of the petition lands, an
award became announced on 12.04.1990. The acquisition of interest in the
petition lands by the petitioners ensued from a deed of conveyance
becoming executed by them with the landowners concerned. The
landowners concerned, had instituted CWP-5175-1990 before this Court.
On the said writ petition a verdict was made, on 13.08.2013. In the said writ
petition (supra), relief for quashing of the notification (supra), became
espoused. Moreover, the said espousal related to land comprised in Killa
No.5/2/2, 4/2, 4/4, 7/2, 7/4, 5/2/1, 4/2 of Rectangle No.43, which was
spoken therein to be measuring 8 Kanals.
4. Through a decision made on 13.08.2013, upon the writ petition
(supra), this Court had in paragraph 7 of the verdict, paragraph whereof
becomes extracted hereinafter, thus borne in mind a policy decision taken
by the government on 26.10.2007, and, on 24.01.2011, with mandates
therein for release of buildings/structures which are found to have been
constructed and regarding which a specific objection became taken by the
landowners in terms of Section 5A of the Act of 1894. Therefore, in the said
paragraph it became enunciated, that since in the writ petition (supra), the
Authority deciding the objections raised by the landowners concerned,
under Section 5A of the Act of 1894, had made speakings about the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114467-DB
CWP-6522-1990 (O&M) -3-
2023:PHHC:111961-DB
existence of the said structures on the lands covered within notification
(supra). Therefore, this Court took the view that the constructed
portion/structures of the petitioners deserve to be exempted from
acquisition. Consequently, to the above extent the notifications were
quashed, and, set aside.
"(7). There is also no denial to the fact that pending this
writ petition when the acquisition is sub judice, the State
Government has come up with the policy decisions dated
26th October, 2007; and 24th January, 2011 for the
release of building/structures which are found to have
been constructed and regarding which a specific
objection is taken by the land-owner under Section 5A of
the Act. In the instant case, since the existence of part of
the structures has been duly noticed by the respondents
while deciding the objections under Section 5A, we are
of the considered view that the constructed portion/
structures of the petitioners deserve to be exempted from
acquisition. The impugned notifications to the extent of
acquisition of the residential houses/ structures raised by
the petitioners are accordingly quashed."
5. Necessarily, the above relief as became granted to the
petitioners (supra), and as related to a Rectangle common to the instant writ
petition but is confined only to the structures existing on the lands, thus in
respect whereof the notifications (supra), became issued. Emphasizingly
also the other vacant portion of the lands, which were covered within the
notifications (supra), were not granted relief for theirs becoming released
from acquisition.
6. Therefore, even if there is a rectangle similar or common inter-
se the writ petitioners (supra), and, to the instant writ petition, but when the
apposite common rectangle though measures 8 Kanals, but yet only the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114467-DB
CWP-6522-1990 (O&M) -4-
2023:PHHC:111961-DB
constructed portion thereof was allowed to be released from acquisition,
and, not the other open lands comprised within the said rectangle common
to both the earlier, and, the instant writ petition.
7. The further sequel thereof, is that, the open lands comprised in
the relevant rectangle common to both writ petitions, thus becomes open for
being put to acquisition.
8. Apparently, the present petitioners did not join the array of
petitioners in the writ petition (supra). Therefore, when apart from the
constructed portion existing, upon the rectangle common to the writ petition
(supra), and, to the instant writ petition rather became solitarily exempted
from acquisition. In sequel, as afore stated in respect of open lands
comprised in the apposite common rectangle were declared to be open to
acquisition to further proceedings for acquisition becoming embarked.
Resultantly, in the wake of the above, besides the petitioners not joining the
array of petitioners in the petition (supra), as such, are estopped from
canvassing before this Court, that the open lands comprised in the said
common rectangle, which were made subject to further acquisition
proceedings in respect thereof being drawn, rather, as such be permitted to
lapse. Importantly, the above plea also cannot become canvassed, given
thereupon, the binding, and, conclusive verdict, as became recorded by this
Court, on writ petition (supra), and, which assigned to the respondents, to
yet proceed with the drawings of a further proceedings for acquisition in
respect of the open lands, thus within the said apposite common rectangle
rather would become untenably reviewed or would become untenably
scuttled.
9. It appears that the present petitioners did not join the array of
petitioners in writ petition (supra), as they had acquired title to the writ
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114467-DB
CWP-6522-1990 (O&M) -5-
2023:PHHC:111961-DB
lands post the making of the notifications (supra). The execution of the sale
deed in the above phase by the present petitioners with the landowners
concerned, is but tainted. The reason being but simple that on launching of
proceedings for acquisition through issuance of a notification under Section
4 of the Act of 1894, and, followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the
Act of 1894, thereupon there is complete divestment of right, title and
interest over the disputed lands, in the landowners, rather concomitantly
there is complete investment of right, title and interest over the disputed
lands in the Acquiring Authority concerned.
10. In sequel, the present petitioners have no locus standi to make
any challenge to the makings of the said acquisition. Nonetheless, if they
have acquired through the relevant sale deed, lawful title to the structures in
respect whereof, this Court in judgment (supra), had granted relief to the
petitioners therein, qua said structures being released from acquisition,
thereupon to the extent (supra), the sale deed would be valid.
11. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition,
and, is constrained to dismiss the same. Hence, the same is dismissed.
12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed
of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
29.08.2023 (KULDEEP TIWARI)
Ithlesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114467-DB
5 of 5
