Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 20 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
[1]
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M)
Reserved On: 31.10.2023
Pronounced On: 20.12.2023
Om Parkash and others
.......... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
.......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Arun Beniwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Siddhanth Arora, Advocate for
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
By way of present writ petition, challenge has been laid to an
order dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure P-13) passed by respondent No. 2 (The
Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak) vide which the claim of annuity made
by the petitioners, in pursuance of Annuity Policy Notification dated
09.11.2010 (Annexure P-9), has been rejected; and further prayer is for
issuing writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondent No. 2 to
grant Annuity benefits in their favour as per the Annuity scheme alongwith
all consequential benefits.
[2] Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No. 1 vide
Notification dated 14.07.2011 issued under Section 4 of the Land
1 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as "1894 Act") sought to
acquire the land measuring 21.73 acers of Village Garhi Bohar in District
Rohtak and in the above notification, land measuring 93 kanal 14 marla of
the petitioners was also made part. Petitioners filed their objection dated
27.07.2011 under Section 5 of the 1894 Act before the Land Acquisition
Collector (for short "LAC"), for releasing of their land from the acquisition
proceedings. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was
also issued on 28.03.2020.
[2.1] The petitioners being aggrieved on account of their land being
acquired approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 7295 of
2013 for release of their land. Vide order dated 07.10.2013 (Annexure P-5),
this Court directed respondents to consider the desirability to release the land
which was not to be utilized. This writ petition was finally decided by this
Court vide order dated 19.03.2015 (Annexure P-6), and ultimately, the land
measuring 35 Kanals 12 Marlas belonging to the petitioners, from the total
acquired land, was released by the respondents, however, the remaining land
measuring 58 kanal 02 marlas still remained under acquisition. During
pendency of the above said writ petition, the respondents passed an award
dated 18.06.2013 (Annexure P-7) in pursuance of the above acquisition.
[2.2] After decision of the aforesaid writ petition, vide representation
dated 10.04.2015, petitioners approached LAC for grant of Annuity benefits
as per the scheme of the Haryana Government which was issued vide
notification dated 09.11.2010. Even after that, petitioners represented on
numerous occasions in this regard, but no response was received by them
from the respondent-Department.
2 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
[2.3] Subsequently, petitioners filed CWP No. 25942 of 2021 before
this Court and during pendency of this writ petition, LAC decided the
representations of the petitioners, vide order dated 27.04.2023 (P-13),
rejecting their claim on the ground that the petitioners did not apply for
annuity within six months from the date of passing of award. The above said
writ petition was accordingly disposed off, with liberty to the petitioners to
file a fresh petition to challenge the order dated 27.04.2023.
[3] It is the order dated 27.04.2023, which has been impugned by
way of present writ petition, while seeking additional relief that respondent
No.2 be directed to grant Annuity as per the Annuity Scheme along with all
consequential benefits.
[4] Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that land of the
petitioners was released by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2015, and
petitioners within 30 days applied for annuity on 10.04.2015, which is not
disputed even in the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2, but
without considering the above mentioned facts, respondent No. 2 has out-
rightly rejected the claim of petitioners. He further submits that scheme
introduced by respondent No. 1 being welfare state, after recognizing the
fact that the acquisition of land under the statute and alienation of
landowners from their source of livelihood could be a painful process, has to
be given a liberal scope and petitioners cannot be deprived of their benefit on
technical ground of delay, while in the facts of the present case, delay cannot
be actually attributed to the petitioners.
[5] On the other hand, learned State Counsel as well as counsel for
respondent Nos. 3 & 4 submit that Department of Revenue and Disaster
3 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
Management while issuing Notification dated 09.11.2010 regarding revised
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, stipulated that application under this
scheme has to be made within 6 months and the relevant portion of the said
policy of the Government is as follows:
"D: Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy
****
4. Annuity Scheme Policy dated 09.11.2010
*****
VIII.) "The Annuity in respect of land acquired during the preceding
calendar year would become due for payment during the month of
January of the following year. The landowner would be required to
submit his Annuity claim in the prescribed form (application form-
2), along with the supporting documents, within a period of six
months of the Award. The acquiring departments shall be
responsible for processing and compilation of the database of all
such valid claimants within a period of further six months. The
Annuity amount would be paid through Bank transfers".
[6] Relying upon the aforementioned condition, he submits that the
petitioners applied for annuity amount after the expiry of period of six
months from the date of passing of the award dated 18.06.2013 by the LAC.
He further submits that since the petitioners did not submit their application
form within six months of the announcement of the award, hence they are
not entitled for annuity amount as per the notification dated 09.11.2010.
[7] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper book as well and I find substance in the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioners.
[8] If we examine the Annuity policy in the facts of the present
case, it can be seen that as per sub-clause (viii) of the policy, to avail the
benefits, landowners are required to make application as per Application
4 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
Form 2.
[9] A perusal of the table in this application form reveals that
landowner is expected to provide all the details of his acquired land in this
application form along with Jamabandi / revenue records in support of the
same, in addition to providing the account and nominee details. Information
asked in the tabular format regarding the acquired land in this form is
reproduced below:
Sr. Name of Rectangle Khasra Share of Area
No. Landowner / No. No. the Kanal Marla
Applicant applicant
[10] From the sequence of events in the facts of the present case, it is
apparent that till 19.03.2015, the extent of land acquired by the State under
the ownership of the petitioners was uncertain, as writ petition bearing
CWP No.7295 of 2013, filed by the petitioners, was pending before this
Court. Specifically in view of the order dated 07.10.2013 passed by this
Court, application for releasing the land was pending before the State /
respondent No 1, and this fact gains further significance in view of the final
outcome of the case, as per which a substantial portion of the acquired land
was subsequently released. In these circumstance, it cannot be conceived as
to how it was possible for the petitioners to fill this form and avail the
benefits of this policy. After order dated 19.03.2015 passed by this Court,
representation / application was filed by the petitioners before respondent
No. 2 on 10.04.2015 itself, i.e. within a period of 20 days and so it cannot be
held that petitioners approached the respondents belatedly or they were
casual in their approach.
5 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
[11] Even further, as cases before this Court are being filed on daily
basis on account of the rejection of the claims of the landowners under this
scheme, on the ground of approaching the LAC after the period of 6
months, application of this Scheme and consequent rejection of the claims of
the landowners requires detailed examination.
[12] This scheme was introduced in State of Haryana on account of
the fact that the Government of Haryana recognized that acquisition of land
under the statute and the alienation of landowners from their source of
livelihood was a painful process, and therefore, with the intention to
minimize this pain of the affected persons, among other policy initiatives, an
annuity was also envisaged to be payable for a period of 33 years as a social
security benefit for the landowners. To examine the object and purpose
behind this Scheme, Preamble of the Notification dated 09.11.2010 is
reproduced hereunder:-
"A. Preamble:
As a welfare state, the Government of Haryana recognises that
acquisition of land under the statute and the alienation of
landowners from their source of livelihood could be a painful
process, notwithstanding the payment of compensation for the
same as per law. Therefore, it intends to minimise this pain of
the affected persons through a set of policy initiatives that
include (a) payment of market value as compensation of land to
the landowners with the revision and fine-tuning of minimum
floor rates in respect of land situated in different parts of the
state; (b) introduction of a special incentive for reducing
litigation qua the compensation amount; (c) revision of the rates
of Annuity payable for a period of 33 years as a social security
benefit for the landowners; and (d) review and introduction of
certain additional benefits over and above the one-time
compensation paid in accordance with the law so as to provide
6 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
for alternate means of sustenance for the landowners and other
landless persons/artisans who are dependent on the agricultural
land being acquired for non-agricultural purposes."
[13] An examination of sub-clauses (i) to (iii) of Annuity Scheme, as
specified under Clause-4, reveals that there is no exclusion clause in this
policy and all the landowners, whose land has been acquired by the State are
eligible for the benefits under this policy. In clause (vii), it has been
stipulated that landowner would be required to submit the Annuity claim in
the prescribed form (application form-2), alongwith the supporting
documents, within a period of six months of the Award, though no
consequences have been provided, in case a landowner fails to submit his
application within 6 months and thus, any such condition, at best, has to be
considered and treated as directory in nature.
[14] Even in procedure specified under Clause-16 of the notification,
regarding implementation of the scheme, in sub clause (iv), while specifying
the implementation of the Annuity scheme, no such stipulation has been
made. Sub-clause (iv) of Clause 16 is reproduced hereunder:-
"iv) As regarding the payment of Annuity/ payment of
commuted value of the Annuity, the landowner would submit
his claim application in the prescribed format (Application
Form-2/3) to the designated officer of the Acquiring
Department along with all the supporting documents/
verification, whereupon, the Acquiring Department would
process the same within a period of next six months and
ensure commencement of payment of the Annuity at the
earliest;"
7 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
[15] This fact gains significance in view of comparative analysis of
'Annuity Scheme' with 'No Litigation Incentive', wherein it has been
categorically specified that no such claim would be entertained after a period
of 6 months of the announcement of the award, whereas no such
consequence have been laid down for the "Annuity Scheme Benefits". Sub
clause (i) of Clause 16, which is the procedure specific to 'no litigation
incentive' is reproduced hereunder:
"i) The landowners, opting to accept the amount of
compensation and avail of the No Litigation Incentive', would
normally be required to make an application to the LAC
within a period of 30 days of the announcement of Award and
furnish an undertaking to that effect in the prescribed format
(Application Form-1). A claim for the 'No Litigation Incentive'
could also be entertained if filed after 30 days provided the
landowner has not filed a reference under Section 18 qua the
compensation amount, or if filed, undertakes to withdraw the
same before receipt of the incentive amount. However, no
such claim would be entertained after a period of six months
of the announcement of the Award. It may be noted that once
the landowners agree to avail of the said incentive, they would
not be entitled to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Act
for enhanced compensation and to that extent the Award
would be deemed to have announced under Section 11 (2) of
the Act. No references under Section 18 of the Act qua the
amount of compensation would be competent in these cases;"
[16] This is also beyond comprehension of this Court that when there
is no possible reason for a landowner to exclude itself from the purview of
this scheme, there is no necessity for a separate procedure to be adopted for
availing the benefits of the same and required formalities associated to
8 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
Annuity policy need to be fulfilled by the office of concerned LAC
alongwith the main acquisition procedure itself, related to the disbursement
of compensation to the landowners. Excluding the landowners from the
benefits of this scheme on the ground of their application being beyond
period of 6 months, would be equivalent to giving with one hand and taking
away with the other.
[17] Recently, a Division Bench of Bombay High Court, vide order
dated 30.10.2023, passed in Writ Petition No. 4022 of 2021, titled as
"Manik Chandru Deokar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors", held that
imposing of condition which would take away the benefits of such
rehabilitation scheme, being arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and contrary to
the object would certainly not stand the test of reasonableness, when tested
on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution. Relevant para of this judgment
is reproduced below:
" 10. The object and purpose in rehabilitating a person like the
Petitioner by allotting him the alternate land in lieu of his
land being acquired for a public project is purely on
special and humanitarian considerations and not merely
to compensate him as in a normal case of land acquisition.
It is for such beneficial reason and only with such
intention that the person who stands uprooted from his
land is rehabilitated by allotment of land, is sought to be
achieved. The object being to mitigate the extreme
hardship which was faced by such persons whose lands
have been taken away. This would certainly not
contemplate imposing of a condition which would take
away the benefits of such rehabilitation, and in fact would
subject such person to a coercive taking away of the
alternate land allotted to him. In short, such condition
9 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
imposed in allotment of land, to the project affected
persons so as to expropriate the land allotted to a person,
to rehabilitate him would certainly not stand the test of
reasonableness, when tested on the anvil of Article 14 of
the Constitution. This apart we wonder as to how it can be
reasonable for any person as a mandate to construct a
house within one year. This has to be subjective. It may
not be possible for everyone to construct a house within
one year. Further the StateRespondent has not been able
to show any policy or any provision under the
Rehabilitation Act which empowers the State to impose
such condition in the context of rehabilitation. Therefore,
imposition of such condition in the allotment order issued
by the Collector was without jurisdiction. Moreover,
having any such condition and revoking the allotment on
such condition would not only be draconian but also
arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and contrary to the object
of the Resettlement Act. Thus, in our considered opinion,
imposing a condition to foist on the Petitioner to
undertake construction within one year of the allotment,
would be on the face of it arbitrary and unreasonable
condition. In any case, such a condition could not have
been implemented after 40 years of allotment of the land
and that too on a complaint of Respondent No.5, who in
no manner was concerned with the allotment of the land to
the Petitioner. Acting on such complaint itself, was a
colourable exercise of power, discriminatory, unjust and
arbitrary action on the part of the Respondent No.4. In
fact by resorting to such action, the very object and
purpose of resettlement/rehabilitation would stand
defeated and destroyed in the facts of the present case."
[18] Even procedure regarding implementation of the scheme has
been specified in Clause 16 of the notification, as per which, State is
obligated to widely publicize these schemes and additional duty has been
10 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
casted on LAC that landowners be informed about the policy. Clause-16 of
the policy is reproduced below:
"16. Information to the Landowners and implementation
of the Scheme
While a copy of this Policy would be available on the
web-sites of the Departments of (1) Revenue &
Disaster Management, (ii) Town & Country Planning
Department, (iii) Industries & Commerce, (iv) HUDA,
and (v) HSIIDC for the information of general public,
the Land Acquisition Collector may, in addition, also
inform the landowners about their entitlements under
the R & R Policy along with the notices under Section
9 of the Act as per Appendix-3. However, non-
communication of the same by the LAC would not in
any manner vitiate any such proceedings by him."
It is not the case of the State Counsel that landowners, despite
of being informed about this policy as per Appendix-3, have not come
forward. Rather, no material has been brought on record that notices as per
Appendix-3 were even sent to the landowners informing them about their
entitlements.
[19] Thus, in the absence of any consequences being provided, if the
application with regard to grant of annuity benefits is filed beyond a period
of six (06) months of the award; and specifically taking into consideration
the fact that it is a beneficial policy implemented by the Government on
account of being a welfare State, and the condition being merely related to a
procedure, this condition cannot be considered as a mandatory condition. At
best, if landowner applies for the benefits under this Scheme after a delay
despite of being specifically informed in this regard, State could withhold
11 of 12
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
CWP No. 16737 of 2023 (O&M); 2023:PHHC:165069
the amount of annuity schemes pertaining to specific years only and not for
the entire duration of 33 years.
[20] In view of the discussion made above, present writ petition is
allowed and petitioners are held entitled for the benefit of this Scheme for
entire 33 years. It is further directed that petitioners would also be entitled
for the interest @ 9% per annum for the delayed disbursement of Annuity
amount in their favour from 10.04.2015 till amount is finally disbursed to
them.
December 20, 2023 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:165069
12 of 12
