Punjab-Haryana High Court
Barkat Ram And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 18 April, 2024
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Lalit Batra
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -1- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP-4558-2018
Reserved on: 19.03.2024
Pronounced on: 18.04.2024
BARKAT RAM AND OTHERS .....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA
Argued by: Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocate
Mr. Hanarveer Sharma, Advocate
Ms. Sanya Kapoor, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with
Mr. P.P.Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana and
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Deepak K.Sabherwal, Advocate for
Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Advocate
for respondents No. 3 to 5 and 7.
Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Prateek Rathee, Advocate and
Ms. Bhawna Chaudhary, Advocate
for respondent No. 10.
(Appearing through Video Conferencing).
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners claim that
the hereinafter extracted reliefs be accorded to them.
" i) Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the notification dated
12.12.08 (P-6) u/s 4 of the Act 1894 vide No. LAC (G) NTLA- 2008/1483 and
declaratory notification dated 11.12.09 (P-9 u/s 6 of the Act 1894 vide no. LAC(G)
NTLA-2009/1525 and award no.40 dated 23.11.11 (P-10) qua land falling in
khewat no.1065 khatoni no.1176 mustil no.14//11/2/2 (5K-4M chahi), 12/2 (7-12
1 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -2- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
chahi) total measuring 12K-16M (notified for acquisition 8K-14M for for
commercial belt along southern peripheral road in Sector 62,65 & 66 at Gurgaon as
per development plan) as per jamabandi for the year 2005-06;
AND ALSO
ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notification
dated 15.4.11 (P - 11) u/s 4 of the Act 1894 vide No. LAC (G) NTLA-2011/1614
and declaratory notification dated 10.4.12 (P - 13) u/s 6 of the Act 1894 vide no.
LAC (G) NTLA-2012/2776 and award no.45 dated 27.2.13 (p - 14) whereby land
of the petitioners falling in khewat no. 1065 khatoni no.1176 mustil no.14//11/2/2
(5K - 4M chahi), 12/2(7-12 chahi) total measuring 12K - 16M (notified for
acquisition 4K - 7M for 30 mtr. Road widening and 30 mtr. Green belt along
southern peripheral road at Gurgaon as per development plan);
AND CONSEQUENTLY
iii) For quashing of the letter Endst.No.CTP/SB/224309 dated 28.11.17 (P-19)
issued by CTP, HUDA (respondent no.7) whereby above acquired land measuring
8K-14M in the first phase for development of commercial belt as per development
plan of HUDA (P-6, P-9 & P-10) AND land measuring 1K-2M acquired in the
second phase for green belt etc. has been transferred in favour of the builder namely
M/s SU Estate (respondent no.10) by showing the same to be exchanged with other
piece of land belonging to respondent no.10;
Also for the reason that the said exercise of power in two different phases (ibid)
would show complete malafide and colourable exercise at the behest of the official
respondents, who have acted on behalf of the private building (respondent no.10) at
the cost of the interests of petitioners by acquiring the same under the garb of public
purpose; AND
iv) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the registration of FIR
No.0056 dated 2.2.18 (P-22) u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 506 IPC P.S. Badshapur
District Gurugram and subsequent proceedings thereto, got lodged at the instance of
respondent no.10 maliciously and in connivance with the local police i.e.
respondents no.8 & 9 as the petitioners were forcibly dispossessed and confronted
with the criminal case;
AND
v) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for holding some independent
enquiry/ investigation as to how and under what plan and conspiracy land of the
petitioners is acquired under the umbrella of public purpose and then same is
transferred to the private builder i.e. respondent no.10 and then to further pressurize
the petitioners by involving them in criminal case (P-22);
AND/OR
vi) For issuance of any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem
appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, including the
restoration of physical possession to the petitioners by granting the damages/
compensation as per law, in the interest of justice;
AND
For staying further proceedings in consequence to the letter dated 28.11.17 (P-19)
and FIR No.56 dated 2.2.18 (P-23), during the pendency of the present petition
before this Hon'ble Court."
2 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -3- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
2. The espousal for rendition of the above prayers becomes
grounded in the hereinafter extracted submissions.
i) That the acquiring authority has arbitrarily and
capriciously, and/or, through adopting a pick and choose policy, taken
to acquire the subject lands, inasmuch as, despite the land of co-
respondent No. 10, becoming made a part of the Section 4 notification,
as became issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter for
short called as the 'Act of 1894') on 12.12.2008, and also when the said
land was included in a declaration made under Section 6 of the 'Act of
1894' on 11.12.2009, yet the said land becoming not included in the
award No.40 dated 23.11.2011.
ii) That the subject lands were subject matter of Civil
Writ Petition No.11911 of 2011 titled as 'M/s Vishnu Apartments
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana', whereins, this Court after making
certain observation(s), observation(s) whereof become extracted
hereinafter, proceeded to make inferences that with there being an
apparent reduction of the acquired area from the actually acquired area,
thereby this Court inferred that as such no objective contemplation
became etched in the mind of the acquiring authority to subject the
lands concerned, thus to acquisition, rather this Court sounded a note of
caution to the State, that the power of eminent domain has been
exercised thoughtlessly, thus without any tangible public purpose being
sub served.
"We would also like to record that with the reduction of
the area proposed to be acquired and the area now being
acquired from 207 acres to 43.51 acres, it is difficult to
comprehend as to what plan the Government had whether
in its mind or on paper when it initiated the proposal for
3 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -4- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
acquisition. If there was any tangible proposal, it should
have found reference either while deciding the objections
under Section 5-A or in the replies filed by the State or the
HUDA but proceedings under Section 5-A, the record
pertaining to consideration of applications for licences
and the replies filed by the State and the HUDA, are bereft
of any particulars of any such project that the State had in
mind while initiating the proposal to acquire the land. We
are, therefore, of the prima facie opinion, that acquisition
proceedings were but an attempt to collect land and then
stampede landowners/builders into applying for licences
and get their land released from acquisition but as this
part of the controversy is neither before us nor has any
such plea been raised, we desist from expressing any
further opinion in this regard but issue a note of caution to
the State that private land holdings should not be
appropriated in a mindless exercise of power of eminent
domain so as to deprive a private owner and benefit
another private owner except where the government has
before it a tangible project or the necessity of the situation
so warrants."
iii) Consequently, the learned counsel for the petitioners
contends that when the subject lands were earlier dealt with by this
Court, thus with the said note of caution becoming echoed against the
acquiring authority. Resultantly, it is contended that as such the
petitioner can also make a good ground, that the espoused releases
(supra) as became allowed in the writ petition (supra) rather are also
required to be accorded to the petitioners.
(iv) That the exchange which has been entered with
respect to some part of the subject lands, thus inter-se co-respondent
No.10 and the HUDA authorities, thus is also manifestative of the
acquiring authority, rather therebys colourably exercising the power of
4 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -5- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
eminent domain especially when the area acquired for the purpose of
widening of road and for green belt has also been included in the said
exchange.
(v) That since no commercial development, has
commenced on the acquired land nor the road widening process, has
been initiated by the respondents, thereby it is contended that the
subject lands are no longer required for facilitating the public purpose,
rather the acquired lands are to be released from acquisition.
Reasons for rejecting the averments (supra) and for consequently
dismissing the writ petition.
3. Earlier to the institution of the instant writ petition by the
petitioners they had filed CWP No. 3236 of 2011, whereins, reliefs
similar to the reliefs claimed in the instant writ petition were thus
canvassed thereins. However, uncontrovertedly the said writ petition
was dismissed as withdrawn vide order 23.02.2011, but with liberty to
file a fresh one with better particulars.
4. Be that as it may, irrespective of the above, the instant writ
petition rather became instituted in the year 2018, whereas, the earlier
decision made on writ petition (supra), whereby it was dismissed as
withdrawn but with liberty to file afresh, thus was made on 23.02.2011,
therebys when the instant writ petition became belatedly instituted,
since the earlier writ petition becoming dismissed as withdrawn.
Consequently, the instant petition rather is hit by a gross pervasive vice
of delays and laches.
5. The reason for making the above conclusion becomes
sparked from the factum, that the challenge to the afore, has been made
thus after almost seven years elapsing, since the passing of the afore
5 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -6- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
orders. Resultantly, the extant petition ex facie becomes hit by the
above vice and as such, the petition deserves becoming rejected.
6. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in
case titled "M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. V/s State of Haryana and
others", reported in (1996) 11 SCC 698, has in the relevant paragraph
of its verdict, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thus
declared that any belated challenge, as made to the relevant lawful fully
terminated acquisition proceedings, thus is hit by the vices of delay and
laches, and thereby too, the said belated motion as existing in the
instant petition, is but required to be declared as misconstituted.
"Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
contends that the petitioner had no knowledge of the
acquisition proceedings; as soon as it came to know of the
acquisition, it had challenged the validity of the
acquisition proceedings and, therefore, it furnishes cause
of action to the petitioner. He further contends that the
writ petition could not be dismissed on the ground of
laches but was required to be considered on merits. We
find no force in the contention. Any encumbrance created
by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the
notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the State if
the possession of land is already taken over after the
award came to be passed. The land stood vested in the
State free from all encumbrances under Section 16. In
Gurmukh Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana [J] 1995
(8) SC 208], this Court had held that a subsequent
purchaser is not entitled to challenge the legality of the
acquisition proceedings on the ground of lack of
publication of the notification. In Y.N. Garg vs State of
Rajasthan [1996 (1) SCC 284] and Sneh Prabha vs. State
of U.P. [1996 (7) 325], this Court had held the alienation
made by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication
6 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -7- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
of the notification under Section 4(1), do not bind either
the State Government or the beneficiary for whose benefit
the land was acquired. The purchaser does not acquire
any valid title. Even the colour of title claimed by the
purchaser was void. The beneficiary is entitled to have
absolute possession free from encumbrances. In U.P. Jal
Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr. vs. M/s
Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. {(1996) 1 SCC
124], this Court had further held that the purchaser of the
property, after the notification under Section 4(1) was
published, is devoid of right to challenge the validity of the
notification or irregularity in taking possession of the land
before publication of the declaration under Section 6. As
regards laches in approaching the Court, this Court has
been consistently taking the view starting from State of
Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. [AIR
1964 SC 1006] wherein a Constitution Bench had held
that it is not either desirable or expedient to lay down a
rule of universal application but the unreasonable delay
denies to the petitioner, the discretionary extraordinary
remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief. The
same was view reiterated in catena of decisions, viz.,
Rabindranath Bose & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors.
[(1970 (1) SCC 84]; State of Mysore & Ors. vs. Narsimha
Ram Naik [AIR 1975 SC 2190]; Aflatoon & Anr. vs. Lt.
Governor of Delhi [ (1975) 4 SCC 285]; M/s. Tilokchand
Motichand & Ors. vs. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales
Tax, Bombay & Anr. [AIR 1970 SC 898]; State of Tamil
Nadu & Ors. etc. V. L. Krishnan & Ors. etc. [JT 1995 (8)
SC 1]; Improvement Trust, Faridkot & Ors. vs. Jagjit
Singh & Ors. [1987 Supp. SCC 608]; State of Punjab &
Ors. vs. Hari Om Co-operative House Building Society
Ltd., Amritsar [1987 Supp. SCC 687]; Market Committee,
Hodal vs. Krishan Murari & Ors. [JT 1995 (8) SC 494]
and State of Haryana vs. Dewan Singh [(1996 (7) SCC
7 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -8- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
394] wherein this Court had held that the High Court was
not justified in interfering with the acquisition
proceedings. This Court in the latest judgement in
Municipal Corporation of Great Bombay vs. The
Industrial Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
[JT 1996 (8) SC 16], reviewed the entire case law and
held that the person who approaches the Court belatedly
will be told that laches close the gates of the Court for him
to question the legality of the notification under Section
4(1), declaration under Section 6 and the award of the
Collector under Section 11. "
7. From a perusal of reply, on affidavit, it is revealed that the
land of the petitioners was acquired in two phases.
8. Firstly, in pursuance to the award No. 40, as made in
respect of land measuring 35.22 acres, award whereof was pronounced
on 23.11.2011, thus possession of the acquired lands was delivered
through rapat possession No. 382, to the department (HSVP).
9. Secondly, in pursuance to the award No. 45, as made in
respect of land measuring 10.94 acres, award whereof was pronounced
on 27.02.2013, thus possession of the acquired lands was delivered
through rapat possession No. 827, to the department (HSVP).
10. Moreover, when it is further indicated in the reply, on
affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondent concerned
that out of total amount of assessed compensation, thus in the awards
(supra), amounts respectively comprised in a sum of Rs. 4,24,84,881/-
(award No. 40) and Rs.13,55,02,073/- (award No. 45) rather have been
released to the land owners, whereas, the balance amount has been
deposited in the Court of ADJ, Gurugram, for therebys it becoming
available for becoming released to the land losers concerned.
8 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -9- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
11. Therefore, the effect of the above, is naturally that the
respondent concerned, has adduced adequate discharging evidence in
respect of the hereafter duo of parameters, as, spelt by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in its verdict rendered in case titled as 'Indore Development
Authority Versus Manoharlal and others', to which SLP (Civil) Nos.
9036-9038 of 2016, has been assigned,
a) Rapat possession becoming assumed over the acquired
lands by the acquiring authority before the coming into force of The
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter for short called
as the 'Act of 2013') ;
b) the assessed compensation amount becoming deposited
for thereby it becoming released to the land losers concerned, especially
when the said deposits have been made prior to the coming into force of
the 'Act of 2013'.
12. Resultantly the petitioners also therebys cannot claim the
making of a lapsing declaration in terms of Section 24 (2) of The Right
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
13. That since it has also been indicated in the reply, on
affidavit, that the subject lands are an integral component of the layout
plans, therebys when this Court is interdicted from making an
interference with the layout plans. Resultantly the petitioners cannot
claim that the notification(s) for acquisition(s) are required to be
quashed nor they can claim that the acquired lands are not an integral
component of the layout plans nor they can claim that as such the
subject lands be released from acquisition.
9 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -10- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
14. Predominantly, also when after making of awards (supra)
and delivery of possession of the subject lands to the acquiring
authority, besides when a substantial portion of the compensation
amount has been released to the land losers, thus there is complete
vestment of right, title and interest over the acquired lands in the
acquiring authority, and, with a concomitant complete divestment of
right, title and interest thereovers in the land losers concerned.
Resultantly, the petitioners cannot contend that at this belated stage
their acquired lands/estates be released from acquisition(s).
15. Since, it is also manifestative in the reply, on affidavit, that
the objections as became preferred by the present petitioners under
Section 5A of the 'Act of 1894' for therebys their acquired estates
becoming released from acquisition, objections whereof became
founded upon the factum that their residential structures existed on the
acquired lands, rather became dismissed, but only after the said
objections becoming well considered. Moreover, when the order
rejecting the said objections became premised on the ground that the
alleged construction(s) were not existing on the acquired lands prior to
the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894' but
were raised subsequently.
16. In sequel when after the issuance of a notification under
Section 4 of the 'Act of 1894' there is a complete vestment of right, title
and interest in the acquiring authority, and, a concomitant divestment of
right, title and interest, in the land losers concerned, thereupon, when
the said alleged construction(s) became raised on the acquired lands
post the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 'Act of 2013'.
Resultantly the said construction(s) were unauthorizedly raised on the
10 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -11- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
subject lands as the subject lands then vested in the acquiring authority.
Therefore, the petitioners infirmly projected in their objections (supra),
that the subject lands were amenable for becoming released besides
concomitantly the order denying the relief of releases of such
construction(s)/acquisitions, thus was a well founded declining order.
17. That since it is indicated in the reply, on affidavit,
furnished to the writ petition on behalf of co-respondent No. 10, that
the exchange which occurred inter-se the land of the said respondent,
and, the department concerned, thus was in terms of the relevant policy
besides was in terms of enabling the locked or inaccessible estate of
HUDA, to become facilitated with an access thereto. Resultantly when
the exchange which became entered inter-se respondent No. 10 and the
department concerned, thus appears to be a well ground in a solemn
public purpose and/or cannot be construed to be infringing any public
policy. Therefore, the said exchange is deemed to be facilitating a
public purpose. In sequel, the said exchange is un-impugnable at the
instance of the petitioners. Moreover especially when the policy
whereunders it became entered into rather remains unchallenged at the
instance of the petitioners.
18. That though the learned counsel for the petitioners has
depended upon the above observation(s) and inferences, as became
recorded by this Court in case M/s Vishnu Apartments (supra), and,
thereby has forcefully contended that the power of eminent domain, as
became exercised in respect of the subject lands rather has been
colourably exercised.
19. However, for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the
said submission is required to be rejected and as such is rejected.
11 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -12- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
20. The reasons for makings of the above inference, becomes
groved in the trite factum, that the observations (supra) as became
passed in the said writ petition were merely obiter.
21. Moreover, the petitioners in that case, thus became granted
the espoused reliefs relating to the untenability of rejections of their
application(s) for licenses, inasmuch as, this Court making an order vis-
a-vis the said application(s) becoming re-considered within the ambit of
Section 48 of the 'Act of 1894', and, also within the ambit of the
relevant policies.
22. Therefore, when as stated (supra), the observation(s)
(supra) were merely obiter and did not ultimately result in the quashing
of the impugned notification(s) rather when the petitioners in the said
case were granted relief to the extent that the rejection of their
applications for the according of licenses, thus becoming reconsidered
in terms of the relevant policies and in terms of Section 48 of the 'Act
of 1894'. Therefore, too, no reliance whatsoever could be placed on the
obiter dicta (supra) as is spoken in the above extracted paragraphs
carried in the judgement (supra) made by this Court.
23. Paramountly also when the petitioner(s) do not claim any
re-consideration of their rejected application(s) for licenses, thus being
made in terms of Section 48 of the 'Act of 1894' or in terms of the
relevant policies.
Final Order of this Court.
24. In aftermath, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition,
and, with the above observations, the same is dismissed. The impugned
acquisition notification(s) and consequent thereto award(s) are
maintained and affirmed.
12 of 13
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052663-DB
CWP-4558-2018 -13- 2024:PHHC:052663:DB
25. No order as to costs.
26. Since the main cases itself has been decided, thus, all the
pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR)
JUDGE
(LALIT BATRA)
18.04.2024 JUDGE
kavneet singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
13 of 13
