Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Accordion Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. And ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 July, 2024

Bench: Sureshwar Thakur, Sudeepti Sharma

                              Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084055-DB




CWP No. 23001 of 2021             -1-


        In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

                                               CWP No. 23001 of 2021
                                               Date of Decision: 08.7.2024

M/s Accordion Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and others                 ......Petitioners


                                  Versus

State of Haryana and others                                   .....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:     Mr. Jagjot Singh, Advocate for
             Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with
             Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate
             for respondent No. 5-HSVP.
                         ****

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

1. In respect of the subject lands, the respondents concerned,

issued a notification dated 12.12.2008 under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act of 1894 (for short 'the Act of 1894'). The said notification

became succeeded by a declaration made on 11.12.2009 under Section 6 of

the Act of 1894. In pursuance thereof, an award dated 23.11.2011 became

passed. However, since an apposite amendment was made, through the

Haryana Amendment Act No. 21 of 2018, thus in the Right to Fair

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013'), wherebys Section

101-A became inserted in the Act of 2013, provisions thereof become

extracted hereinafter.

"101A. Power to denotify land.- When any public purpose, for which the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084055-DB

(Central Act 1 of 1894) becomes unviable or non-essential, the State Government shall be at liberty to denotify such land, on such terms, as considered expedient by the State Government, including the payment of compensation on account of damages, if any, sustained by the land owner due to such acquisition:

Provided that where a part of the acquired land has been utilized or any encumbrances have been created, the landowner may be compensated by providing alternative land alongwith payment of damages, if any, as determined by the State Government."

2. Therefore, in terms of the above extracted provisions, as

became incorporated in the Act of 2013, through the Haryana Act No. 21 of

2018, thus the writ petitioners have claimed the benefit thereof.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the subject

lands are both unviable and non-essential for furthering the public purpose.

Therefore, he prays that the subject lands be exempted or released from

acquisition.

4. The present petitioners had also instituted a representation in

the above regard before competent authority concerned, and, thereons a

declining order dated 18.9.2023 (Annxure R-5/5) has been passed. The

relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereinafter.

"x x x x x Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is clear that the land owners can file an application seeking denotification of the land under Section 101- A. However, they do not have any vested right to seek denotification or to compel the State to exercise such power. The State Government is free to denotify the land only if the requirement of un-viability or non-essentiality is fulfilled, in public interest as the power of denotification can be exercised only and only, if the State Government is fully justified about un-viability/non- essentiality.

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084055-DB

Applying the provisions of Section 101-A of the Act of 2013 and the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as regards exercise of such powers, to the facts of the present case, the only inevitable conclusion comes out to be that there is no merit in the claim put forth by the applicants/petitioners as the land in question is very much viable/essential to achieve the public purpose, for which, it was acquired. Rather the case put forth by the applicants in the representation filed is full of misrepresentation / concealments which makes their malafide intent more than crystal clear as the applicants have maliciously claimed that they are in the physical possession of the land in question whereas the possession of the land in question stood taken long back vide Rapat No.204 dated 20.12.2005.

Be as it may be, the LAC/HSVP has taken a categoric stand that the land in question is very much viable and planned. As per the planning, the same affects the planning of HSVP as explained in the aforesaid paras.

CONCLUSION As a sum and substance of what all has been discussed here in above, the concealments made by the applicant and above all the categoric stand taken by the acquiring department i.e. LAC and the beneficiary department l.e. HSVP that the land in question has already been planned and thus the public purpose is very much viable/essential, therefore, the claim made by the applicants/petitioners being devoid of any merits.

In view of the facts mentioned above, the committee did not find any merit in considering the request of the applicant/petitioner as per policy for return of un-utilized land under the provisions of section 101A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Haryana Amendment) Act 2017. The recommendations of the constituted zonal committee

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084055-DB

have been approved by the competent authority i.e. Govt. of Haryana whose decision was conveyed vide letter Memo No. A-1-2023 / 4408 dated 04.09.2023. Accordingly, the claim of the applicant/petitioner for release of land is hereby rejected in view of observations/facts mentioned above."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the fact

that the said annexure covers the subject lands.

6. A reading of the above declining order discloses, that in terms

of various judgments earlier made by this Court, whereby this Court had

declared that rather than the aggrieved land owners becoming empowered to

draw the benefit of the apposite statutory coinages "non-essentiality or

unviability" qua retention of the acquired lands, thus the competent authority

concerned, is empowered to make an objective contemplation whether the

subject lands are as a matter of fact required to be retained for furthering the

public purpose concerned, besides is empowered to take a decision whether

the subject lands are unessential or unviable for furthering the public

purpose for which they became subjected to acquisition.

7. Be that as it may, this Court had earlier relied upon a judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Kerala v. M.

Bhaskaran Pillai", AIR 1997 SC 2703, whereins it has been propounded as

under:-

"In view of the admitted position that the land in question was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by operation of section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, it stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The question emerges: Whether the Government can assign the land to the erstwhile owners? It is settled law that if the land is acquired for a public purpose, after the public purpose was achieved, the rest of the land could be used for any other public purpose. In case there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, then instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and 4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084055-DB

the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilised for the public purpose envisaged in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. In the present case, what we find is that the executive order is not in consonance with the provision of the Act and is, therefore, invalid. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench is well justified in declaring the executive order as invalid. Whatever assignment is made, should be for a public purpose. Otherwise, the land of the Government should be sold only through the public auctions so that the public also gets benefited by getting higher value."

8. Resultantly, only if there is a tangible evidence placed on record

by the petitioners, suggestive that either on account of financial stringency

thus disabling the respondents to cause releases to the land losers concerned,

qua the determined compensation amount, and/or on account of vis major

falling upon the subject lands, thereupon alone there is a complete

empowerment in the acquiring authority concerned, to conclude whether the

subject lands are unessential or unviable for furthering the requisite public

purpose concerned.

8. In the above regard, there is no such material placed on record

by the present petitioners. Therefore, the objective contemplation, as made

in the speaking order (supra), relevant portion whereof, as appertains to the

present petitioners, becomes extracted hereinabove, but leads this Court to