Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Chander vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 March, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Reserved on :-27.02.2024
Date of Pronouncement:- 05.03.2024
1. CM-2674-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-59-2024 in
CWP-9820-2023
Suresh Chander ....Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
2. CM-2702-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-63-2024 in
CWP-9839-2023
Kuldeep Singh ....Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
3. CM-2443-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-52-2024 in
CWP-9846-2023
Jagbir Singh through LRs. & ors. ....Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
4. CM-2454-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-53-2024 in
CWP-9840-2023
Dheeraj Malik and ors. ....Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
5. CM-2704-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-64-2024 in
CWP-9912-2023
Chandan Singh through His LRs and ors. ....Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
SANJAY GUPTA
2024.03.15 10:53
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
6. CM-2651-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-58-2024 in
CWP-9867-2023
Kanwal Singh through His LRs. and ors. ....Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
7. CM-2436-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-51-2024 in
CWP-9878-2023
Dalbir Singh and ors. ....Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
8. CM-2700-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-62-2024 in
CWP-9829-2023
Savitri Devi ....Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
9. CM-2731-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-65-2024 in
CWP-9844-2023
Jitender and ors. ....Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
10. CM-2650-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-57-2024 in
CWP-9830-2023
Khajani through LRs and ors. ....Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
11. CM-2684-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-61-2024 in
CWP-9884-2023
SANJAY GUPTA
2024.03.15 10:53
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Ram Niwas through LRs. and ors. ....Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
12. CM-2680-CWP-2024 in/and
RA-CW-60-2024 in
CWP-9821-2023
Om Parkash and ors. ....Petitioners
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal Sr. Advocate with
Mr. R.S. Madan, Advocate,
Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate
and Mr. Mahender Joshi, Advocate
for applicant/respondent No 5/NHAI.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J.
CM-2674-CWP-2024 & 11 other applications
These are the applications seeking condonation of delay
in filing the abovementioned review applications.
For the reasons mentioned in the applications, which are
supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been shown for
condoning the delay on account of earlier filing LPA in the present
cases and then subsequently on account of winter vacations, thus,
the same are allowed and delay in filing the review applications is
hereby condoned.
MAIN CASE:
This order of mine shall dispose of abovementioned 12
review applications, as all have arisen out of the same impugned
order. For convenience, facts are being taken from RA-CW-59-2024
in CWP-9820-2023.
2. By way of present review application(s) filed under Order
47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of CPC, prayer has been made for
review of the judgment dated 11.10.2023 in the light of order dated
20.12.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.
2090 of 2023 titled as "National Highway Authority of India Vs.
Suresh Chander and Others".
3. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that writ
petitions were filed before this Court by few landowners/petitioners
for directing the respondent-authorities to release the amount of
annuity due towards them on account of acquisition of their land in
terms of Policy Notification dated 09.11.2010 (hereinafter referred as
2010 policy). These writ petitions were allowed by this court vide
order dated 11.10.2023, concluding part of which is reproduced
below:
"In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I
find substance in the submission made on behalf of
the petitioners- landowners. Accordingly, the
petitioners-landowners are held entitled for
disbursement of their arrears of annuity along with
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till
the date of payment and the aforesaid exercise shall
be completed within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Further,
it is ordered that in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case and in order to avoid any
more delay in the effective redressal of the grievance
of the petitioners-landowners, at the first instance,
respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to release the
benefits due towards the petitioners within the
aforementioned period, with right to recover the
same from respondent No.5 in due course."
3.1 Aggrieved from the same, respondent No 5-NHAI filed
intra Court appeal before Hon'ble Division Bench and the same was
disposed of being withdrawn vide order dated 20.12.2023 with liberty
to seek review of the judgment dated 11.10.2023.
3.2 By way of present review application, prayer has been
made for review of the judgment dated 11.10.2023.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant /
respondent No 5-NHAI submitted that specific contentions qua delay
and laches on the part of petitioners/ landowners; acquiescence on
their part, not having raised the claim of annuity in their reference
petition under Section 18; not having made application for release of
annuity within six months as well as the enforceability of the policy
dated 09.11.2010, were raised by the respondent/applicant in its
written statement, were not taken into consideration while passing the
impugned order dated 11.10.2023 and accordingly the judgment was
vitiated by manifest errors apparent on the face of the record. Thus, it
is urged that these submissions may also be taken into consideration
before passing the final order.
4.1 Detailing those submissions, Ld. Counsel placed reliance
upon Clause 19(i) of Policy dated 09.11.2010, which is reproduced
as hereunder:-
"This policy shall also be applicable for any
land acquisition for the Central Government
(including the Ministry of Defence)/ its PSUs, the
NHAI/ Railways in the State of Haryana and an
undertaking to this effect would be obtained in
advance from such indenting agencies before
initiating any land acquisition proceedings. The
amount of Annuity Policy will be charged upfront
from such agencies in addition to the compensation
paid to the landowners."
In view of this clause, ld. Senior Counsel submitted that
no undertaking as per Clause 19(i) of Policy dated 09.11.2010 was
ever obtained by the State Government from the office of the
applicant before initiating the land acquisition proceedings, and
therefore, the Policy dated 09.11.2010 cannot be made applicable to
the Applicant.
4.2 It is further submitted by Ld. Senior Counsel that petitioner has
not attached any document to show that he had submitted his annuity
claim within the prescribed period of six months from the date of the
announcement of the award as mandated in Clause 4(viii) of the
Policy dated 09.11.2010 and so his claim could not be taken into
consideration.
4.3 It is also submitted that the writ petition is not
maintainable on the grounds of delay and latches as the policy was
introduced by the State Government on 09.11.2010, whereas the
petitioner remained silent for a period of 13 years and has filed the
writ petition in the year 2023.
4.4 Lastly, It is submitted that the petitioner has waived off his
right to claim the annuity before the appropriate forum because a
perusal of the reference under Section 18 of the Act of 1894 made by
the petitioner before the LAC reveals that he did not raise any claim
whatsoever in relation to the annuity and therefore, he was not
entitled to raise this claim at this stage.
5. I have heard learned Senior counsel representing the
applicant and gone through the paper book. I do not find much
substance in the submissions made on behalf of the applicant.
6. A perusal of notification dated 09.11.2010 reveals that
this scheme was brought in super-session of a earlier scheme
bearing Memo. No. 1298-R-5-2007/4174 dated 06.04.2007 through
memo bearing No. 5451-R-V-2007/13258 dated 07.12.2007
(hereinafter referred as 2007 policy). In these circumstances, the
present scheme only revised rates of annuity, benefits of which was
available to the land owners earlier as well. This is also apparent
from the title of the scheme as shown in Clause 4, which reads as
"4. Annuity Scheme revised rates and features".
6.1. In that eventuality, it is apparent that even at the time
when proceedings for the acquisition in the present case were
initiated, 2007 policy was in force and the applicant was bound to
compensate the landowners in accordance with the extant policy. It is
apposite to mention here that in 2007 policy, there was no
requirement of undertaking and relevant clause from the same is
reproduced hereunder:-
"iv. The policy of paying annuity will be
applicable to all cases of land acquisition by
Govt. except land acquired for defence
purposes."
Thus, 2010 policy was only in continuation of the
earlier policy, wherein, primarily the amount of annuity was revised
from Rs.15000/- per annum per acre to Rs.21000/- per annum per
acre and the annuity amount was also increased from Rs.500/- to
Rs.750/-. There is no doubt that as per clause 19(i) of the 2010
policy, undertaking has been envisaged from the indenting agency
before initiating any land acquisition proceeding, but it is merely a
procedural step. Since the steps in the present acquisition has
already been initiated vide notification dated 18.06.2010 u/s 4 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, prior undertaking in accordance with 2010
policy which was notified on 09.11.2010, was not possible. Since
2010 Policy was made applicable with effect from 07.09.2010 and the
award in the present case was passed on 21.10.2010, landowners
were entitled for revised annuity as per the 2010 policy. Additionally,
there was no specific counter to the statement made by Ld. State
counsel that a meeting dated 16.01.2010 was held between the
representatives of the State and respondent No.5, well before the
passing of the award dated 21.10.2010, wherein they were made
aware of the Annuity Scheme in anticipation, which was recorded in
the impugned order as well.
6.2. With respect to the liability of the applicant, there are
clauses in the 2010 policy which categorically specify that the liability
of annuity would be on the beneficiary/ indenting agency which are
reproduced as below:-
"4. Annuity Scheme revised rates and features
****
iv) The scheme of Annuity payment will be
applicable to all cases of land acquisition by
the Government irrespective of the same
being acquired for the State Government and
its agencies or the Government of India/ its
agencies, including the NHAI, the Railways,
and the Defence purposes;
v) The Government Departments acquiring
land under a statute shall recover the amount
required for discharging the Annuity
obligations along with the compensation
amount from the concerned agencies (for
whom land is acquired) and shall ensure that
the 'Instrument of Annuity' creating a right in
favour of the erstwhile landowner is issued at
the earliest;"
6.3. As stated earlier, asking for undertaking is merely a
procedural step, not having any mandatory nature so as to bind the
state with the liability in case of non-compliance. The purpose of
undertaking as can be seen from the policy is only to make the
beneficiary/indenting agency explicitly aware and understand its
liability under the policy. This clause cannot be held to be mandatory
in nature for the reason that even in 2007 policy the burden of
Annuity has to be borne by the beneficiary/ indenting agency and
there was no such clause in that policy. Secondly, this scheme was
notified on 09.11.2010 making it effective from 07.09.2010, while
backdated undertaking in land acquisition proceedings already
initiated was not possible; showing the requirement of undertaking
was only procedural and not mandatory. Additionally, when the state
has brought a beneficiary policy, its benefits have to be given to the
landowners and the liability until shown to be contrary, has to be
borne by the beneficiary of the land acquisition.
7. Other arguments raised by learned Senior Counsel
regarding compliance of Clause 4(vii), delay and laches as well as
acquiescence, have been discussed at length by this court and
rejected in "Om Parkash and others vs The State of Haryana and
others" in CWP No. 16737 of 2023 bearing Neutral Citation
No:=2023:PHHC:165069, wherein it was held that until it is shown
that a landowner has been specifically informed in this regard, delay
and latches or other technical grounds cannot be made applicable to
him as 2010 policy is a beneficial legislation . Relevant para from this
judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"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 the
amount of annuity schemes pertaining to specific
years only and not for the entire duration of 33
years."
8. On these counts, there is an internal inconsistency as
well in the arguments raised by the applicant. As recorded in the
impugned order, it was submitted that respondent No.5 was never
informed by the state representatives about the applicability of the
above said notification, though a similar 2007 policy has been in
existence at that time. While on the one hand, the applicant/
respondent No.5 expects the landowners, who are already distressed
on account of forced dispossession and looking for alternatives to
settle in their lives, to know as and when a policy/law/notification is
passed, whereas on the other, authorities of the NHAI, which are
involved in land acquisition process day in and day out, feign
ignorance of such notifications and policies.
9. Last but not the least, the objection raised by applicant/
respondent No.5 that the landowners by their act and conduct were
estopped from claiming the benefits of annuity policy as no such
prayer was made in their reference under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, was liable to be rejected being unsustainable
as under the reference under Section 18 of the Act, the only claims
which can be made are the one which are regulated by Section 23
thereof which nowhere contemplates the grant of benefit of annuity.
Thus, there was no acquiescence on the part of landowners/
petitioners.
10. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made above, even
after taking into consideration the submissions made by respondent
No.5 in the written statement and without commenting upon whether
these issues were even raised at the time of final hearing of the writ
petition(s), no reason is made out for interference in the impugned
order dated 11.10.2023 and therefore, the present review
applications are dismissed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.
05.03.2023 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sanjay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
