Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 October, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CWP-12282-2018
Deepak Kumar ......Petitioner (s)
Versus
State of Haryana& others ....Respondent(s)
(2) CWP-14983-2018
Abhay Singh & another ......Petitioner (s)
Versus
State of Haryana & others ....Respondent(s)
Reserved on :04.10.2024
Pronounced on: 25.10.2024
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICEHARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, Advocate
Mr.Aman Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner
in CWP-12282-2018.
Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners
in CWP-14983-2018.
Mr.Ankur Mittal, Addl.A.G., Haryana
Mr.Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.Ankur Mittal, Ms. Kushaldeep Kaur Manchanda,
Mr.Siddhanth Arora, Ms.Naina Jindal, Advocates, for
respondent-HSIIDC.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. :
The present judgment shall dispose of CWP-12282 & 14893-
2018 as the notifications in question are similar and there is commonality
of questions of law and fact. The pleadings shall be discussed separately
and reasoning accordingly, given to pass appropriate orders, keeping in
1 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
view the peculiar facts and circumstances the petitioners are placed on the
basis of the submissions made and the stand taken by the respondents.
2. Challenge in principle is to the order dated 17.10.2014 passed
by the Addl.Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Industries &
Commerce Department, Haryana whereby the claim of the petitioners has
been rejected in pursuance of the earlier directions issued in the lead case
filed by the landowners of the said area in CWP-14340-2011 titled Sultan
Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana & others, decided on 29.11.2013.
Challenge had been raised to the acquisition proceedings initiated on
13.05.2010 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
the 'Act') followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated
12.05.2011 and the subsequent notices under Section 9 followed up by the
award dated 10.05.2013 in the said proceedings.
3. The land in question which is sought to be acquired is for the
public purpose mainly for the development of Industrial Sectors 15 to 17,
Dharuhera, falling in Village Kapriwas, Malpura and GhatalMahniawas
Tehsil & District Rewari vide the Section 4 notification and the award for
494 acres, 3 kanals 6 marlas of the area, the break-up of the three villages
finds mention as under:
"Sr.No. Name of Village Area
Kanal Marla
or 494 acres 3Kanals 6 Marlas"
2 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
4. The objections under Section 5-A were accordingly filed
which lead to issuance of recommendations by the Land Acquisition
collector and eventually vide Section 6 notification, 435 acres, 1 kanal&
12 marlas of land which was sought to be acquired out of the three villages
and the break-up of the land which is sought to be acquired is as under:
Village wise details of land under acquisition
Sr.No. Village Area
Acre Kanal Marla
1. Kapriwas 227 4 1 (1816)
2. Malpura 153 4 1 (1224)
3. GhatalMehniwas 54 1 10(432)
Total 435 acres 1 kanal 12 marlas
Total Area: 435 acres 1 kanal 12 marlas
5. The notices were issued to the landowners for submitting
their claim for amount of compensation before the LAC on 10.05.2013
leading to the award being passed on the said date. Apparently, 5 writ
petitions came to be filed challenging the said acquisition, the lead case
being Sultan Singh (supra)and the principle that the acquisition being a
salutary step towards the regulated industrialization, was upheld in
principle on 29.11.2013. However, the denial of benefit of Government
policy for release of different types of land or properties from acquisition
to other landowners including the petitioners only on the plea of non-
submission of objections under Section 5A was declared illegal and
annulled and the entire area under acquisition was considered for the
desirability of releasing those land including that of the petitioners which
fulfilled the criteria as per the Government policy applicable and
exemption for buildings/structures was to be considered. Relevant part of
the order dated 29.11.2013 reads as under:
3 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
"[52]. For the reasons afore-stated, the 'public purpose' of
theacquisition being a salutary step towards the
regulatedindustrialisation of the State is upheld. However, the
denial of benefitof Government Policy for the release of different
types of land orproperties from acquisition to other landowners
including thepetitioners only on the plea of non-submission of
objections underSection 5-A is declared illegal and annulled.
Similarly, in rest of thecases, the claim of parity if made out,
would also require re-consideration. The respondents are
consequently directed to deputethe Officers' team to visit the entire
area under acquisition andconsider the desirability of releasing
those land or properties[including of the petitioners] which fulfill
the criteria of theGovernment Policy then applicable. The Officers'
Committee shall beat liberty to invite fresh claims in this regard
but only thosebuildings/structures shall be considered for
exemption which were inexistence at the time of issue of Section 4
notification. The exercisein this regard shall be completed within a
period of three months andtill then status-quo with regard to the
existing structures shall bemaintained.
[53]. Disposed of. Dasti."
6. The order dated 17.10.2014 was then passed by the
Addl.Chief Secretary rejecting the cases on merits. The landowners had
also approached the Apex Court against the order of the Co-ordinate
Bench which was disposed of on 24.04.2018 (Annexure P-16), keeping in
view the fact that the case had been reconsidered and liberty was granted
to challenge the said order. The relevant part of the order passed by the
Apex Court in one set of cases reads as under:
"We have heard the learned counsels for the petitioners.
During the pendency of the present Special Leave Petitions
pursuant to the impugned order(s) of the High Court, the cases of
the petitioners have been reconsidered and an order dated 17th
October, 2014/8th December, 2014 has been passed which is
adverse to the petitioners. The petitioners have a remedy against
the aforesaid order dated 17th October, 2014/8th December, 2014
which they may avail of. We make it clear that in the event the
4 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
petitioners choose to challenge the aforesaid order dated 17th
October, 2014/8th December, 2014 such challenge can be founded
on all legal grounds and objections that may be available in law.
There shall be status quo for a period of four weeks with effect
from today to enable the parties to avail of remedy in accordance
with law.
We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on
merits."
Pleadings of CWP-12282-2018
7. The petitioner-Deepak Kumar son of Laxmi Narain son of
Mukh Ram, submitted that he is owner of land measuring 117 kanals 6
marlas which is stated to be acquired which would be clear from Section
5A objections (Annexure P-2). The basis of the objections were that there
was a pucca house in Rectange 44 Killa No.11/1(4-0), 12/1(4-0) and that
he was residing with his family members. The land was agricultural and
the adjoining land was fertile land and he was dependent upon it and there
was an electric connection in the said house. There was a memorial in the
name of his father in Rectangle No.44 Killa No.11/1 and similarly, a
poultry farm in Rectangle No.43 Killa No.15/1(4-0) and a pucca well in
Rectangle No.44 Killa No.11/1 which had a separate connection and thus,
sought exemption. The Land Acquisition Collector, in his case, had
recommended as under:
Sr. HSII Name Khasr Total Wheth Objection got Recommendation
No DC of a No. constructio er recorded by the made by the Land
of Sect Objecto & total n before objector in the Acquisition
obj or r area or application Collector
ect No. after
ion Sectio
n4
4 15-16- Deepak 42//6/ In the said Alr- The applicant in In the said land
17 Kumar 1/1/1( land eady hisapplication has holding, in Rect
5 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
son of 1-0) holding, in const- written that one Pacca No.43 Killa
Shri 43//6( Rect. ructed house has been No.15/1, on the
Laxmi 8-0) No.43, constructed and land measuring 2
Narain 8(8-0) Killa oneYaadgar and its kanals, Poultry
son of 9(8-0) No.15/1, on boundary, in the farm and in Rect.
Mukh 10(8- the land memory of father has No.44 Killa
Ram 0) measuring been made and for No.11/1, on the
resident 15/1(4 2 Kanals earning livelihood one land measuring 2
of -0) there is poultry farm has been Kanals,
Kapriwa 44//6 Poultry constructed in which residential house
s (8-0) farm and in the work of poultry is etc. and poultry
15/4(4 Rect. being done and the farm have been
-0) No.44 Killa applicant has prayed constructed in
7(8-0) No.11/1 on for releasing his respect of these
8(8-0) the land agricultural land from killa numbers, the
9(8-0) measuring acquisition Government is
11/1(4 2 Kanals requested to take
-0) residential decision at its
12/1(4 house and own level. In the
-0) Poultry rest of the killa
13/1 Farm is numbers there is
(4-0) constructed agricultural land,
14/1 . therefore, finding
(4-0) no merit in the
45//10 objection the
(8-0) same be rejected
11/1 and, thus, it is
(4-0) right to acquire
the land.
Kitta
117-0
Salam
Sd/- 6.1.2011
S.D.O. (Civil)-cum-
Land Acquisition Collector,
REWARI"
8. In the writ petition which was decided alongwithSultan Singh
(supra), filed by the petitioner's son and grandsons and other sons of
6 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
Mukh Ram bearing CWP-10550-2013 titled Sat Pal & others Vs. State of
Haryana & others, findings were recorded against him regarding the
existence of any residential house. The said findings read as under:
"[v] similarly in the case of Sat Pal & Ors., [CWP No.10550 of
2013], there is nothing on record to suggest any residentialhouse
over the acquired land. There exists a small Kotha andstructure of
a defunct poultry farm. The rest of the land is vacant andbarren
and there is no legal impediment against its utilisation forindustrial
purposes.
[35]. Since the objections submitted by some of the
petitionershave been rejected broadly for the reasons drawn in the
preceding
paragraph, we are of the view that the decision of the
StateGovernment in arriving at that conclusion can not be termed
arbitraryor taken without any application of mind."
9. In such circumstances, keeping in view the directions issued
in the main case, for re-consideration, the authorities had visited the site
on 19.09.2014 and came to the conclusion that there was only one room
structure and they have their regular residence in the village and the so-
called house at the poultry farm was just to use the same during the
attendance of the birds and was more of labour office, Samadhi and the
poultry farm. Relevant portion of the Site Visit Report read as under:
"Site visit on 19.09.2014 and Site Report
(i) The petitioner was present at the site when it was inspected. It was
observed that the petitioner is running a poultry farm (83.50m x
10.70m) over part of the land in khasra Nos. 44//11/1 and 43//15/1, and
has also constructed labour rooms [3.4m x 9.1m) and water tank
Poultry farm is just to use the same during the attendance of the birds.
Remaining land is lying vacant at site.
(ii) It was clear from a perusal of the above that construction on the said
land would have been in existence at the time of issue of Section 4
Notification. However, all the structures are an extension of the Poultry
Farm and its subsidiary uses and do not constitute a regular residential
7 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
house. He is learnt to be maintaining his regular residence in the
village.
(iii) The layout plan showing the land ofthe petitioner company (marked
at serial No. 6) is enclosed as Annexure 1. As per the lay out plan, the
land of the petitioner is forming part of road network consisting of24
meter wide road, 30 meter wide road in Sector-17, Dharuhera,
Industrial plots in Sector-16 and 17, water works and part of land
reserved for parking in Sector 17, Dharuhera Industrial Area.
(d) Photographs of site in question are reproduced below:
8 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
(e) Conclusion
(i) The Hon'ble High Court has made thefollowing observations in
its order dated 29.11.2013 qua this case:
'Similarly, in the case of Satpal & Ors. [CWP No. 10550
of 2013], there is nothing on record to suggest any
residential house over the acquired land. There exists a
small Kotha and structure of a defunct poultry farm. The
rest of the land is lying vacant and there is no legal
impediment against its utilization for industrial purposes.
'
(ii) Aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2013 of the Hon'ble High
Court, the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court
by way ofSLP No.14929 of 2014 -Satpal and others v. State of
Haryana and others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered
status quo in respect of possession of subject land vide order
dated 01.07.2014. Since the order dated29.11.2013 is under
challenge in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, it would not
lie with the Officers' Team to pass any order in the matter."
10. The written statement filed by respondents No.1, 2, 5& 6 is
also to the same extent that there is no residential house and no family of
the landowners reside at the said land. Reliance has been placed upon the
site inspection and the photographs. It is further clear from the order that
the land of the petitioners required for the road network consisting of 24
meters road, 30 meters wide road, 75 meters wide road and industrial
9 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
estate, as per the site-plans appended, as Annexure R-1 along with the
written statement which confirms the said factum. The averments
regarding discrimination which has been pleaded in the writ petition
regarding release of land of one Dhanpat, Chand Singh, Tej Singh, Hari
Singh, Mam Chand, all sons of Dev Karan and Karan Singh, Hari Ram,
Jeet Ram and Suresh all sons of Rampat, on the ground that their only 4
kanals 17 marlas of land was included in the acquisition proceedings
whereas they had total land measuring 35 kanals 11marlas and therefore,
they were also similarly situated and the policy of pick and choose has
been highlighted.
11. The reply of the State is categorical regarding the issue of
discrimination that land of one Pushpinder Spinning Mill Ltd.was released
and 9 marlas of Sukhbir Singh Chabra in Village Kapriwas. Regarding the
release of land of Hari Singh, it is pointed out that as per the report of the
LAC, land of Dhanpat, Chand Singh, Tej Singh, Hari Singh, Mam Chand,
all sons of Rampat filed six sets of objections for release of land
measuring 35 kanals 11 marlas. The LAC had considered the objections
and noticed that there were residential houses in Khasra Nos.22//25/2(2-0)
and 27//5(4-0) and the remaining land was being used for agriculture
purposes. The team of officers who had visited the land of the objectors
had noticed that construction was also there on Khasra Nos.22//25/2(7-11)
and 27//5 min(7-11) which form part of cluster of houses in the name of
'Digaram Colony' and had recommended release of the said parcel of
land. It is thus clear that keeping in view the observations made in the
earlier writ petition, the consideration had to take place and therefore, the
petitioners in the present case cannot plead any discrimination as has been
10 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
sought to be argued and neither any replication has been filed to controvert
the defence taken by the State.
12. The factual matrix has been clarified by the visit of the site
which in consonance shows that labour office and poultry farm was there
and there is no construction and the petitioner is residing in a separate
residential house and therefore, cannot claim release of land as per the
policy which shows that the house has to be inhabitated and it was,
thereafter, further superseded by the subsequent policy that the house has
to be used by the owner for his own residential purposes. In the absence of
the factual matrix being in favour of the petitioner in the present case,
there seems to be no valid reason to interfere in the well considered order
of the State. It is also to be noticed that on an earlier occasion also, the
findings had already been recorded in the case of the petitioner and
therefore, it would not be appropriate for us to take a contrary view, in the
absence of any change of circumstances. Thus, no case for interference is
made out in the case of petitioner-Deepak Kumar and the writ petition
bearing CWP-12282-2018 is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pleadings in CWP-14983-2018
13. A perusal of the writ petition would go on to show that
deceased-petitioner No.1, Abhay Singh, through his LRs had withdrawn
the writ petition vide order dated 27.09.2022 when the LRs were brought
on record vide CM-15315-2022 and the petition only survives qua
petitioner No.2, Rohtash. The pleadings are that the petitioners are two
brothers residing collectively in the village and were co-owners of land
and house bearing Mustil No.36, Kila/Khasra No.7/2, 8/1, 9/1, 12, 13,
14/1, 17/1, 17/2, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24/1 and Mustil No.42, Kila/Khasra
11 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
No.2/2/1, 2/2/2, 3, 8, 13, 27 and Mustil No.43, Kila/Khasra No.1 in the
Revenue Estate of Village Kapriwas, Tehsil and District Rewari vide
registered Jamabandi dated 27.05.2010, which would also be clear from
the fact that the objections under Section 5A (Annexure P-3) were filed on
the ground that they have a pucca house and a tubewell on the land. The
existence of 20/25 trees of medicinal qualities like Neem, Awala, Jamun,
Sehtut etc. had been pleaded and the land of the petitioners was touching
National Highway No.8 and other side is touching the common village
passage. The land was also bifurcated by 200 feet wide road of Alwar
bye-pass.
14. The report of the LAC was that there was house of 10 marlas
constructed on Mustil No.42, Kila No.8 and the Government was
requested to take a decision and the rest of the land was agricultural and
the acquisition would have been appropriate, as per the report dated
07.07.2011, which reads as under:
"On the land mentioned above there is a house of 10 Marla
which is constructed on Mustil No.42, Kila No.8. The Govt. is
required to take a decision at his own level. The remaining land is
agriculture land and I do not find any reasonable cause in the
objections and I dismiss the same. So, it is correct to acquire the
land.
Sd/- 7.7.2011
SDO(C)-cum-
Land Acquisition collector, Rewari"
15. Photographs have been appended (Annexure P-10) which
also verify the said factum of the type of construction and the balance land
being mainly agriculture in nature. In the earlier round of litigation in
CWP-23810-2011 titled Abhay Singh & another Vs. State of Haryana &
others, the writ petition was disposed of on 09.04.2014 with the
12 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
observations that the respondents would conduct a fresh survey as directed
in Sultan Singh's case (supra) and take appropriate decision. The
petitioners had approached the Apex Court by filingSLP-9004/2014and
during the pendency of the same, they were granted interim relief and the
order was passed on 17.10.2014 (Annexure P-15) which is subject matter
of challenge herein. The observations regarding petitioner No.2, Rohtash
residing at the residential house of the acquired land and his brother being
a practicing Advocate was residing at Rewari and the residential house,
cattle-shed and 2 rooms having been constructed for labour and one tube-
well being installed, have come forth. The land was forming part of
statutory green-belt of Sector 17 along with the NH 8 and industrial plot of
Sectors 16 & 17. The conclusion arrived at that the residential house and
the cattle-shed constructed for the labour could not be considered for
release as it was forming part of the statutory green-belt along NH-8.
However, the HSIIDC was directed to allot the petitioners equal land
along with prescribed open space after measurement of the area subject to
the R&R policy. Relevant part reads as under:
"(c) Site visit on 19.09.2014 and Site Report
(i) It was observed at the time of site visit that the petitioner has constructed a
Samadhi (3.0 x 2.0 square meters), residential house and cattleshed
(approximately 145.87 square meters) in khasra No. 42//3 and tubewell in
khasra No. 42//27. The area under construction (residential house, cattle shed,
smadhi and labour rooms) is forming part of statutory green belt along NH-8.
The remaining land is lying vacant.
(ii) Both the brothers Sh. Abhey Singh and Sh. Rohtash were present during the
site visit. It was revealed during interaction with them that Sh. Rohtash is
actually staying in the residential house constructed over the acquired land
along with his family. His brother (Abhey Singh - Sr. No. A.9) is a practicing
Advocate and maintains his regular residence at Rewari. The constructed area
has also provision for cattle, and a few rooms constructed for the labour, one of
13 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
which is on rent with some transporter company whose trucks were seen parked
outside.
(iii) The layout plan showing the land of the petitioners (marked at serial No. 5)
is enclosed as Annexure-1. As per the lay out plan, the land of the petitioner is
forming part of land required for the internal circulation 30 meter wide road in
Sector 17 and the green belt along the NH-8, industrial plots in sector 16 and
17, while part of the land is reserved for parking of Dharuhera Industrial Area.
(d) Photographs of the site in question are reproduced on the following page:
14 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
(e) Conclusion
It is observed that the land under residential house and cattle shed at present
location cannot be considered for release as it is forming part of the statutory
green belt along NH-8. However the HSIIDC is directed to allot to the
petitioner equal land along with prescribed open space, after measurement of
the area under the constructed structures (comprising of the residential house,
the cattle-sheds and the rooms constructed for the labour etc.) at compensation
rate in the area earmarked for the R&R plots. The landowner shall be liable to
pay the EDC and IDC etc. to the HSIIDC in respect of the alternate allotted
area. The landowners will, of course, be entitled to the compensation for the
structures."
17. The stand of the State and HSIIDC is also crystal clear which
is in consonance with the orders passed by the State that land in question
was affecting the planned development in the cases not covered under the
policy of the Government and cannot be considered for release. The
recommendation has already been given in favour of petitioner No.2 that
he is to be allotted equal land along with prescribed open space and
constructed structure comprising of residential house, cattle shed and room
constructed for labour etc. at the compensation rate in the area earmarked
for the R&R plots and is liable to pay the EDC and IDC etc. to HSIIDC
for the alternate allotted area and that he is entitled for the compensation
15 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
for structure and that the release aspect would affect the planned
development.
18. We have been also taken through the site-plans to show as to
how the release would adversely affect the planned development as the
green-belt along with the National Highway would be adversely affected
and the part of the land juts into the portion of National Highway, which
would be clear from the site-plan (Annexure R-1). As noticed, petitioner
No.1 has already got his petition dismissed as withdrawn and is a
practicing Advocate at Rewari wherein he is residing and thus, only
petitioner No.2, Rohtash is entitled for allotment of land as recommended
by the LAC and the HSIIDC has filed separate reply and would comply
with the same. It has also been mentioned that land falling in Khasra
Nos.42//2 min (1-5) and 43//1 min(5-2) falling in Village Kapriwas stood
acquired by the Department of Urban Estates, Haryana vide Award dated
09.08.2010 for the construction of a 75 meter wide road and the other land
was notified vide notification dated 12/13.05.2011. The land, thus, being
required for the road network consisting of 24 meters road, 30 meters wide
road, 75 meter wide road and industrial plots, as per the site-plans
appended and the development planning would be adversely affected and
therefore, there is no scope of any interference.
19. The Co-ordinate Bench in Sultan Singh's case (supra), as
reproduced above, noticed that the notification is for salutary purpose of
industrialization of the said area and only on account of the land being
used for cultivation, we do not find any tangible reason to take a different
view. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition,
apart from the benefit which is to be granted, as recorded by the LAC,
which respondent No.4-HSIIDC will duly comply with.
16 of 17
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137158-DB
20. The issue of discrimination raised has already been dealt with
above as the other persons have been granted the benefit of release on
account of a residential colony already in place. Resultantly, the present
writ petition bearing CWP-14983-2018 is disposed of, with the above-said
observations, since respondent No.4-HSIIDC has to implement the
recommendations made by the officers. All pending CM application(s)
stand disposed off.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
25.10.2024 (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
17 of 17
