Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Chander @ Suresh Chand And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 1 August, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097872-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(105) CWP-25446-2021
Suresh Chander @ Suresh Chand & others ......Petitioner(s)
(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
(2) CWP No.6365 of 2022
Suchita ......Petitioner(s)
(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
(3) CWP No.13336 of 2022
Satish
atish and others ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
Decided on: 01.08
01.08.2024
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present:- Mr. B.R. Rana, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vijender Singh Ahlawat,, Advocate and
Mr. Rahul Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner (s)
(in CWP-25446-2021).
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
(in CWP-6365 & 13336-2022)
2022) and
for respondent Nos.25 & 27 (in CWP
CWP-25446-2021).
Mr. Ankur
ur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana &
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG,
AG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate and
Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Advocate for respondent
respondent-HSVP.
HSVP.
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 06-08-2024 00:27:40 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097872-DB
CWP No.25446 of 2021 and CWP Nos.6365 & 13336 of 2022
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)
The present judgment shall dispose of three writ petitions i.e.
CWP No.25446 of 2021 and CWP Nos.6365 & 13336 of 2022, wherein the
petitioners who are co-sharers in the land measuring 15 kanals 18 marlas seek
quashing of the notification dated 23.08.2007 issued under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short '1894 Act'), which was followed up by
the notification dated 21.08.2008 issued under Section 6 of the said Act and
the subsequent Award dated 19.08.2010.
2. Challenge has also been raised to various speaking orders passed
by the authorities below, as the landowners had filed writ petitions beforethis
Court and in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court authorities have
passed orders deciding their representations on 26.04.2018 (Annexure P-10)
[in CWP-25446-2021], 05.05.2017 (Annexure P-8) [in CWP-6365-2022] and
31.03.2016 (Annexure P-9) [in CWP-13336-2022].
3. The reason which weighed with the petitioners to approach this
Court was solely on the basis that three co-sharers had earlier in
CWP No.1173 of 2009 'Ajay Dewan & others Vs. State of Haryana &
others' decided on 16.09.2013 approached this Court before the passing of the
Award that they were exclusive owner of 15 kanals 18 marlas of land situated
in the revenue estate of Safidon, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, though they
were only share-holders to their respective shares. The Coordinate Bench at
that point of time on the statement made by counsel for the State had come to
the conclusion that the land/property surrounding the petitioners' land had
already been released from acquisition and no public purpose can be achieved
by retaining the petitioners' land and, therefore, the State was willing to
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097872-DB
CWP No.25446 of 2021 and CWP Nos.6365 & 13336 of 2022
release the said land. It was noticed that the land of the said petitioners was
shown in yellow colour and surrounding land was shown in green colour and
same had been released from acquisition. It was also noticed that the
petitioners land was acquired for the purpose of 45 meter wide sector road,
which now cannot be constructed due to the release of the adjoining land. In
such circumstances, the writ petition was allowed and the notification qua the
land of the petitioners was set aside. The land in question is falling in Khewat
No.1631/1556, Khatoni No.1941, Khasra No.68/1 (5-2), 2/1 (2-16), 69/5/1 (8-
0), situated in village Safidon, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind as per the
Jamabandi for the year 2004-2005.
4. It is pertinent to notice that it is not disputed that earlier the share
of the petitioners and the co-owners was only 7 kanals 5 marlas and the
authorities accordingly released that land in compliance of the said order of the
Division Bench. Bolstered by the said fact the first application was filed on
31.07.2014(Annexure P-8) whereby Suresh Chander, the petitioner in CWP
No.25446 of 2021 took the plea that 3 kanals 19 marlas of land as per his share
be removed from acquisition, keeping in view the said decision in favour of
the co-owner. The said application was filed after a period of 4 years and after
the land had been vested with the State, since the award came to be passed on
19.08.2010. Since the State did not act upon the said claim as such, CWP
No.2647 of 2017 was filed, wherein directions were issued to decide the said
representation dated 31.07.2014. The authorities rejected the same vide
speaking order dated 26.04.2018(Annexure P-10) while noting that 7 kanals 5
marlas of land had been released, in view of the orders of this Court. The land
possessed by the petitioner had not been released, as the same was lying
vacant without any construction and the Committee was not in a position to
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097872-DB
CWP No.25446 of 2021 and CWP Nos.6365 & 13336 of 2022
decide where the land of the petitioner falls and no recommendation regarding
the release of the land of the petitioner could be made until he gets partition of
his land and obtains specific khasra numbers. Another writ petition bearing
CWP No.1893 of 2021 was then filed by petitioner No.1 Suresh Chander @
Suresh Chand challenging the said order, which was dismissed on 28.01.2021
(Annexure P-11) by observing as under:-
"After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition
to either get the land partitioned or to get the other co-sharers on
board for return of the land.
Allowed as prayer for.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
5. It is in such circumstances, the present writ petition bearing CWP
No.25446 of 2021 has been filed by Suresh Chander @ Suresh Chand
alongwith three other co-sharers on the basis that an earlier partition dated
18.02.2002 (Annexure P-12) had been executed, which was a private partition
between the parties but no entry was made in the revenue record. Apparently
the same if accepted was executed before the first writ petition was dismissed
on 28.01.2021 and even prior to the issuance of the Section 4 notification on
23.08.2007. Thus, for this reason also, we are of the considered opinion that
the second writ petition on the same cause of action is not maintainable,
specially more so the writ petition has been filedby adding other three
petitioners, who had never even bothered at any point of time to agitate for
their grievances after the award was passed in the year 2010 and now have
jumped on the bandwagon for the first time in the year 2021.
Facts of CWP No.6365 of 2022,
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097872-DB
CWP No.25446 of 2021 and CWP Nos.6365 & 13336 of 2022
6. The petitioner claims to be co-sharer in the said land on the basis
of a sale deed dated 15.09.2004 (Annexure P-10). Firstly a perusal of the said
sale deed would go on to show that it was for a joint land, which was not
partitioned. The vendors sold land measuring 401 square yards out of the joint
land of 15 kanals 18 marlas by giving the boundaries as such, though the land
was not partitioned. On the strength of the said purchase, after a period of 10
years, the petitioner Suchita filed an application dated 15.07.2014 (Annexure
P-5) for release of the land in similar circumstances like the petitioner Suresh
Chander had filed. Resultantly, she had filed CWP No.25225 of 2014 by
giving reference of Ajay Dewan (supra), wherein directions were issued to
decide the representation. Thereafter, the said application was rejected vide
speaking order dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure P-8), wherein it was noticed that
there is no record of ownership, since the petitioner had not bothered to get the
land mutated in her favour and resultantly, the representation was rejected.
7. The petitioner, thereafter, started her battle for getting the
mutation entry done and approached this Court by filing CWP No.12940 of
2018 (Annexure R-1) wherein the picture again projected before the learned
Single Judge was that she was entitled for mutation, on the basis of the said
sale deed and the land which had been released was 15 kanals 18 marlas,
whereas the factual aspect was that only 7 kanals 5 marlas had been released
regarding the other co-owners to the extent of their share only. The writ
petition was allowed on 26.07.2022 (Annexure R-2) and the State was directed
to enter the mutation in favour of the petitioner, on the basis of the said sale
deed dated 15.09.2004.
8. Resultantly, the petitioner then filed the present writ petition
challenging the order dated 05.05.2017 (Annexure P-8) only in the year 2022
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097872-DB
CWP No.25446 of 2021 and CWP Nos.6365 & 13336 of 2022
and, therefore, now seeks to demolish the findings recorded by the authorities
that she was never an owner in the revenue record, therefore, no objection can
be taken to the reasoning given in the order dated 05.05.2017. The fact
remains that mutation had not been entered in the revenue record after the sale
deed and at the time of acquisition and, accordingly, the authorities were well
justified to dismiss the representation by rejecting the claim for release of the
land. We also do not find any tangible reason to find out any fault in the
findings recorded by the authorities, merely because mutation has been
ordered by misrepresenting before the Single Judge that all 15 kanals 18
marlas had been released. The delay aspect is also to be noticed that how after
the land had been vested with the State in the year 2010, the landowners are
onlyseeking to enforce their right regarding the release of the land, on the basis
of alleged discrimination, which we do no not find. The petitioners in our
considered opinion have only a share or right alongwith their co-owners in the
land which stands released in accordance with law, as had already been held
by the Coordinate Bench by seeking the right of partition vide order dated
28.01.2021.
9. In the present petition, release is sought of land measuring 750
square yards, again on the basis of request which was made on 31.07.2014
(Annexure P-4). No action being taken on the saidrepresentation, CWP
No.7140 of 2015 had been filed, wherein directions were issued to decide the
representation on 20.04.2015 (Annexure P-8). Eventually, the speaking order
had been passed on 31.03.2016 (Annexure P-9), wherein it has been
mentioned that factory was in existence and land of the petitioners affect 45
meter wide sector road as per approved demarcation plan of Sector-9 Safidon
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097872-DB
CWP No.25446 of 2021 and CWP Nos.6365 & 13336 of 2022
bearing Drawing No.DTP(J)/1259/2013 dated 28.03.2013. It has specifically
been mentioned that on account of the earlier release of land measuring 7
kanals 5 marlas, the alignment of sector road at this point of time was not
feasible and remaining land can only be utilized after amendment in the master
plan and if it is released in patches as shown on demarcation plan, it cannot be
utilized for HUDA and, therefore, the land is extremely valuable asset for the
development of sector particularly and progress of urbanization in general.
10. It is pertinent to notice that the land was acquired for the purpose
of development of residential and commercial Sector-7 Safidon, Jind, in the
area of village Singpura, Hadbast No.53. We have also perused the site plan
appended by the State as Annexure R-1, which would go on to show that the
land which was released is in a separate compact portion and if the release of
the balance land is done, it would adversely affect the planned development.
Thus, purpose of the development would be thrown out of the window and
public purpose would be affected. The claim of the petitioners was based on
the fact that similar benefit had been granted to the co-sharers and they were
only waiting in the wings. Only when the order was passed in their case, they
had approached this Court at a subsequent point of time and, therefore, cannot
as such avail the same benefit, as the earlier co-sharers had approached this
Court in the year 2009 before the passing of the Award and, thus, they cannot
also claim parity on that account.
11. In view of the cumulative discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the writ petitions being bereft of any merit are liable to be
dismissed. Needless to say that we have not observed anything on the rights
as such of the petitioners regarding their claim against their co-sharers, who
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:097872-DB
CWP No.25446 of 2021 and CWP Nos.6365 & 13336 of 2022
have got the land released, which they can press in the independent
proceedings for the purposes of partition of their shares.
12. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
01.08.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
8 of 8
