Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghbir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 5 August, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) CWP No.19827 of 2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.08.2024
Raghbir Singh
.....Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(2) CWP No.22867 of 2019
Amar Singh and another
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(3) CWP No.24797 of 2019
Bhupinder Singh and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(4) CWP No.25135 of 2019
Baldev Singh
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
1 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2024 02:53:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
CWP No.19827 of 2019 (O&M)
and 17 connected cases -2-
(5) CWP No.25818 of 2019
Teja Singh
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(6) CWP No.26386 of 2019
Ram Sawrup @ Ram Sarup Singh (since deceased) through his LRs
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(7) CWP No.26623 of 2019 (O&M)
Rajinder Sharma (since deceased) through his LR & others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(8) CWP No.27183 of 2019
Baljeet Singh and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(9) CWP No.28318 of 2019
Karnail Singh and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
2 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2024 02:53:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
CWP No.19827 of 2019 (O&M)
and 17 connected cases -3-
(10) CWP No.28394 of 2019
Sarabjeet Kaur and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(11) CWP No.28396 of 2019 (O&M)
Gobinda @ Gobind Ram (since deceased) through his LRs
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(12) CWP No.28851 of 2019
Balwinder Singh
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(13) CWP No.28907 of 2019
Sohan Singh and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(14) CWP No.28931 of 2019
Kanwaljit Singh @ Kamaljit Singh and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
3 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2024 02:53:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
CWP No.19827 of 2019 (O&M)
and 17 connected cases -4-
(15) CWP No.29946 of 2019
Mihan Singh and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(16) CWP No.22319 of 2021
Baljit Singh and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(17) CWP No.4948 of 2022
Gurcharan Singh and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(18) CWP No.17603 of 2024
Ram Dulari (since deceased) through her LRs
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
*****
Present:- Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G, Haryana with
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
4 of 15
::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2024 02:53:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
CWP No.19827 of 2019 (O&M)
and 17 connected cases -5-
Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate
for the respondent-Alaska Construction Company Pvt. Ltd.
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.(Oral)
This judgment shall dispose of the abovementioned 18 civil
writ petitions as common questions of law and facts are involved therein.
However, for convenience and clarity, the detailed order is being passed in
CWP No.19827 of 2019 titled Raghbir Singh Versus The State of
Haryana and others.
2. The present set of petitions was tagged alongwith the earlier
litigations preferred by the other land owners way back in the year 2008-
2009 which we have segregated today itself. Since the land owners in those
cases may have other reasons and the present petitioners cannot seek the
benefit of being considered on the same footing as the other land owners
were pursuing the remedies since the year 2008-2009 qua the award passed
on 03.03.2009, whereas the present writ petitions were filed in the year
2019 onwards.
3. The factual matrix as set out in CWP No.19827 of 2019 titled
Raghbir Singh Versus The State of Haryana and others is that a chunk of
land measuring 253.03 acres situated within the revenue estate of Villages
Jandli, Hadbast No.113, Kanwali, Hadbast No.111, Sounda, Hadbast
No.114 and Sarai Mehdood, Hadbast No.112, Tehsil and District Ambala,
was sought to be required for public purposes, i.e for development and
utilization of land for residential, commercial and institutional area for
Sector 23, Ambala City by way of the notification dated 28.02.2006
5 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
and 17 connected cases -6-
(Annexure P-7) under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short 'the Act'). It is not disputed that the petitioner himself filed
Objections (Annexure P-9) under Section 5-A of the Act before the Land
Acquisition Collector, Haryana on 30.03.2006 against the proposal of
acquisition of his land measuring 63 Kanals 06 Marlas in Village Jandli.
The basic grouse of the petitioner was that in similar circumstances, the
land had been acquired for Sector-9, HUDA, Ambala in the year 1984 and
the landowners were awarded a meagre amount of compensation of
Rs.52,000/- per acre despite the fact that the market value of the land was
not less than Rs.14,52,000/- per acre. Thereafter, the notification under
Section 6 of the Act was issued on 27.02.2007 (Annexure P-10). However,
before issuance of the award on 03.03.2009 (Annexure P-15), the petitioner
sold land measuring 63 Kanals 06 Marlas to private respondent No.11,
namely, Alaska Construction Company Private Limited for a total sale
consideration of Rs.87,03,750/- vide sale deed dated 08/09.03.2007
(Annexure P-11). Finally, the award (Annexure P-15) was passed on
03.03.2009, whereby out of the total land measuring 253.03 acres, only the
land measuring 87.55 acres was acquired. Even the developer had also
been granted license No.256 dated 07.11.2007 (Annexure P-17), which has
also been challenged by filing the present writ petitions. The plea has also
been raised that the sale of the land was got done under duress.
4. A perusal of the sale deed (Annexure P-11) reveals that the
general power of attorney had been executed by the petitioner in favour of
6 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
and 17 connected cases -7-
Rajnish Kumar way back on 13.12.2006 before the notification under
Section 6 of the Act and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Ambala.
It has specifically been mentioned in the sale deed that the land measuring
63 Kanals 06 Marlas owned by the petitioner in Village Jandli is neither
mortgaged nor pledged with anybody and there is no case pending in any
Court of law regarding the said land. The seller had taken off his ownership
and possession from the spot and the purchaser had taken the possession.
There is an endorsement in the sale deed that in case of any dispute
regarding legal or ownership rights and due to that reason, a part of the
land goes out of the hands of the purchaser, then, the seller shall be liable
to give back the consideration amount as well as damages. The seller had
taken the sale consideration of Rs.87,03,750/- vide cheque No.537493
dated 12.12.2006 drawn on the Union Bank of India, Court Road, Ambala
City. It was also mentioned in the sale deed that the sale amount has been
received and no amount is due and the land has been sold for purchasing
other land and there is no stay on the land from any Court.
5. Moreover, a perusal of the award (Annexure P-15) shows that
the market value of the acquired land of Village Jandli has been assessed @
Rs.10 lakh per acre and Villages Kanwali, Sonda and Sarai Mahdood @
Rs.8 lakh per acre. Besides this, 30% solatium on the market value of the
land, compensation of wells/tube-wells, structures and trees has also been
granted under Section 23(2) of the Act.
6. In the present set of writ petitions, challenges have been made
7 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
and 17 connected cases -8-
at a belated stage, after 10 years of the award. The sale deeds were got
executed by the petitioners themselves in favour of the developer on
09.03.2007 after the notification under Section 6 of the Act dated
27.02.2007 in which the land of the petitioner was not even included. It is
pertinent to mention here that in some cases, the petitioners have sold the
land after getting the benefit of Section 5-A of the Act and thereafter, they
are challenging the sale deeds also after having received payments in
cheques way back in the year 2007. This fact would be clear from para 8 of
the written statement of respondents No.1 and 8, which reads as under:
"8. That it is respectfully submitted that as far as the
land claimed in the petition is concerned, it was not
included in the declaration issued under section 6 of
Act of 1894 and thus, was released from the acquisition
proceedings. Suffice to mention that the sale deed was
executed by the petitioner on 09.03.2007, when
admittedly there was no pending acquisition
proceeding on the land in question. Therefore, the
entire case put forth by the petitioner that pending the
acquisition proceedings, he was coerced to sell his land
falls flat because the land of the petitioner was not
included in Section 6 notification which was issued on
27.02.2007 and even the publication in the newspaper
as well as by way of munadi was made prior to the
execution of sale deed on 09.03.2007. Thus, on the date
when sale deed was executed the land of the petitioner
was not under acquisition proceedings."
8 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
and 17 connected cases -9-
7. Further, the perusal of para No.4 of the written statement filed
on behalf of respondents No.2, 3 and 7 would go to show that before
issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, respondent No.11 with
some individual land owners had already submitted an application to
exclude the land measuring 164.29 acres, over which it had clear
ownership. Accordingly, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued
on 27.02.2007 for the land measuring 65.89 acres after excluding the area
applied for licence. The present petitions, thus, suffer from various
ailments of estoppel, acquiescence and delay and laches.
8. The Co-ordinate Bench headed by the then Hon'ble Chief
Justice examined this aspect in Desraj and others Versus State of Haryana
and others, 2022(4) RCR (Civil) 298, wherein it is held that the doctrine of
acquiescence act as estoppel which bars the litigant from complaining
about violation of his right. In that case, the notification under Section 4 of
the Act was issued on 20.04.1990 for the acquisition of the land situated in
Villages Jharsa, Bindapur, Kanhai and Samaspur for the development and
utilization thereof for residential, commercial and institutional parts of
different sectors of Bahadurgarh. The award was announced by the Land
Acquisition Collector on 23.03.1993 and the challenge by way of the writ
petition was made in the year 2016 and as such, the silence was maintained
by the petitioners for almost 25 years. The relevant portion of the said
judgment in paragraphs No.30 to 32 is reproduced as under:
"30. Having considered this part of the argument
raised by Mr. Mittal and enunciation of law in The
9 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
and 17 connected cases -10-
Chairman, State Bank of India and Another (supra) we
are of the considered opinion that a person who alleges
deprivation of his legal rights at the hands of the State
by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court so as to
obtain the equitable relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, must fully satisfy the Court that
there are no laches or undue delay on his part in
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. The blame
worthy conduct such as laches or undue delay,
acquiescence or waiver are well acknowledged
principles of law, on which, the litigant can be ousted
at the threshold. A person's entitlement for relief under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, be it against the
State or anybody else, even if it is founded on the
allegations of infringement of his legal right, has to
necessarily depend upon blame worthy conduct of the
person seeking relief. The issue as to whether the
doctrine of laches disentitle grant of relief to a person
in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, came up for consideration before
the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in "Moon Mitts Ltd. v. M.R. Meher,
President, Industrial Court" cited as "AIR 1967 SC
1450" wherein it was regarded as a principle that
disentitle a party for grant of relief in exercise of
discretionary power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. As far as the doctrine of
acquiescence is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India while considering the distinction between
10 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
and 17 connected cases -11-
"acquiescence" and "delay and laches" has went on to
hold both limitation and laches destroy the remedy but
not the right, however, acquiescence virtually destroys
the right of the person. It implies active assent and is
based upon the rule of estoppel. As a form of estoppel it
bars a party from complaining afterwards of the
violation of the right. Even indirect acquiescence
implies almost active consent which is not to be
inferred by mere silence or inaction as involved in
laches.
31. In the cases arising out of land acquisition, the
concept of negating a challenge on account of the
doctrine of delay and laches is well acknowledged. It
assumes more significance when the plea of delay and
laches is taken against the land owner after the vesting
has taken place in favour of the State. It is well
acknowledged principle of law that in order to plead
infringement or to claim equitable relief, the litigant
who choose to approach the Court must not have
blameworthy conduct such as delay and laches etc.
Undoubtedly the concept of doctrine of acquiescence as
explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is on
much higher footing which has been considered to be
sufficient to even destroy the rights. We are in
agreement with the arguments being raised by the State
that as regards the pleas of procedural irregularity, not
taking into consideration the status of land at the time
of initiation of the acquisition proceeding in a proper
manner, and rejecting the objections filed under
11 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
and 17 connected cases -12-
Section 5A of the Act, etc, the land owner is not entitled
to raise such pleas with any delay as these are to be
raised at the first instance and immediately, whenever
they accrue to a land owner and if the land owner
choose to remain silent and allows the State to proceed,
the doctrine of acquiescence will come into play which
is sufficient to take away that right. Any such plea being
raised at a belated stage is required to be rejected at
the threshold.
32. In the instant petition, the petitioners are
claiming that their construction was not released under
Section 5A of the 1894 Act. Significantly, these
grievances are being raised in the year 2016 as regard
the cause of action, if any, which was available to them
in the year 1991. Can the petitioners be allowed to
raise these grievances after 25 years, especially when
they not only maintained silence but even accepted the
amount of compensation without hesitation, the answer
is "no" and as such, they cannot be permitted to raise
these pleas after such a delay what to talk of
considering the same."
9. In similar circumstances, another Co-ordinate Bench in CWP
No.19901 of 2012 titled Prem Kumar and others Versus State of Haryana
and others decided on 17.08.2017, also rejected the challenge of the
petitioners by holding that for challenging the agreement to sell and the
sale-deeds being inter-se between two private parties, the remedies may be
elsewhere especially when the plea of fraud is sought to be alleged.
12 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
and 17 connected cases -13-
10. It is settled principle that plea of fraud and coercion as off-shot
cannot be settled in the writ Court and even otherwise, on the question of
delay, even the civil suit has to be filed within a specified period and the
relief which the land owners as such are seeking to get, cannot be permitted
by way of the present writ petitions after a decade of having sold land for
the purpose of purchasing other land. Having benefitted from the registered
sale deed and prior to that having executed the power of attorney in favour
of the builder, the petitioners had surrendered all their rights as mentioned
in the sale deeds itself, and it is hard for us to accept that the sale deeds can
be, now, challenged in the writ Court.
11. Similarly, the facts in other connected matters would go to
show that in CWP No.17603 of 2024 titled Ram Dulari (now deceased)
through her LRs Versus State of Haryana and others, even the objections
under Section 5-A of the Act were not filed and the challenge was raised
against the award after 15 years.
12. In CWP No.22867 of 2019 titled Amar Singh and another
Versus State of Haryana and others, the land owners apparently got their
part of land released by filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act and
the same was never included in the award. A plea was taken in para
No.72(xx) of the pleadings that the scrutiny of the collaboration agreement
to sell, general power of attorney and application on behalf of the land
owners for granting of license, releasing of the land and execution of the
sale deed goes a long way to prove that there is malafide, intentional
13 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
and 17 connected cases -14-
acquisition of the land for private respondents.
13. However, the respondent-State in its reply in CWP No.19827
of 2019 has submitted in para No.3 that for setting up a residential plotted
colony on the land measuring 152.304 acres to Alaska Construction
Company Pvt. Ltd. and 11 other individual land owners, the same was in
collaboration with Vatika Land Base Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of Licence
No.256 dated 07.11.2007.
14. In such circumstances, having entered into agreements with
the builders with open eyes and having alienated the land, challenge made
by the petitioners in the present set of petitions, now, at this belated stage,
cannot be permitted. Reliance in this regard can be made to the
observations made by the Coordinate Bench headed by the then Hon'ble
Acting Chief Justice in Civil Writ Petition No.558 of 2013 titled Chet Ram
and another Vs. The State of Haryana and others decided on 24.02.2025,
wherein acquisition of the land was challenged after having sold the land to
the private builders on 10.05.2006 and the petition was filed after a period
of 07 years. The Division Bench by dismissing the matter on the principle
of delay and laches, noticed that the petitioners cannot take advantage of
their own wrong especially when their inaction has resulted in several third
parties having irretrievably altered their position to their detriment.
15. Resultantly, we do not find any tangible reason to take a
different view as per the settled law and the present writ petitions are
dismissed.
14 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100135-DB
and 17 connected cases -15-
16. Needless to say that any observations made hereinabove are
regarding separate bunch of cases and the persons, who did not agitate for
their grievances at the earliest and we have not commented upon any rights
or given a clean chit to the respondent-builder in any manner since we are
not adjudicating on the said issues qua land owners who have approached
the Court immediately after the acquisition proceedings which is not the
case in the present set of cases.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
August 05, 2024 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
15 of 15
