Punjab-Haryana High Court
Azad Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 September, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126809-DB
107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) CWP No.1147 of 2020
Date of Decision: 23.09.2024
Azad Singh and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(2) CWP No.1144 of 2020
Jagpal Rathee and others
.....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents.
(3) CWP No.1038 of 2020
Sita Ram and others
.....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. Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioners in all the petitions.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G, Haryana with
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate with
Ms. Kushaldeep K. Manchanda, Advocate and
Mr. Sidhhant Arora, Advocate and
Ms. Vasundhra Asija, Advocate for
Mr. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate
for the respondent-HSIIDC.
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 06-10-2024 21:45:53 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126809-DB
CWP No.1147 of 2020 with
two connected cases -2-
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.(Oral)
The present judgment shall dispose of the above-referred three
writ petitions, since notification in question and village from which the
land had been acquired is common. However, for brevity and clarity,
detailed order is being passed in CWP No.1147 of 2020 titled as Azad
Singh and others Versus State of Haryana and others.
2. Challenge in the present writ petitions is, primarily, to the
acquisition proceedings initiated way back on 23.01.2001 under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the 1894 Act') and Section 6
of the 1894 Act dated 22.01.2002 leading to the award dated 20.01.2004.
3. The plea taken by the petitioners is for lapsing of the
acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act') on the ground that the
possession of the land is with them and compensation has not been paid.
Challenge has also been raised to the order dated 03.06.2019, which is
passed in all the three cases with separate facts of even date which was
further passed in pursuance of the earlier directions on account of the
petitioners having approached this Court and having got the necessary
directions to decide their representations way back in the year 2015.
4. In this petition filed by petitioners Azad Singh and others, the
land has been described as measuring 102 Kanals 06 Marlas in one Khewat
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126809-DB
CWP No.1147 of 2020 with
two connected cases -3-
and in the other Khewat to the extent of 16 Kanals 08 Marlas and the
ownership to the extent of their shares in Village Sankhol, Tehsil
Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. Perusal of the order impugned dated
03.06.2019 passed by the Managing Director, HSIIDC in the present case
would go on to show that the acquisition was part of 253 acres 04 Kanals
02 Marlas land for a public purpose of development of industrial area and
eventually, after considering the recommendations of the Land Acquisition
Collector under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, the notification under Section
6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 22.01.2002 for acquisition of the land
measuring 157 acres 07 Kanals 19 Marlas only due to the stay granted by
the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. In the earlier litigation filed before
this Court, certain portion of the land was also released in favour of M/s
Surya Roshni Limited and Parle Biscuits Private Limited and the Temple
Ganpati Mangal Dham on 11.03.2013, whereas the land of applicants was
lying vacant at site. The possession as well as the Kabza Karwahi along-
with the mutation had already been done and the land of the petitioners had
affected the proposed planning for Industrial Group Housing, Green area
and 30 meter wide road. In such circumstances, the recommendations of
the Committee were that 16 acres of land was lying vacant and the
compensation had already been lifted by the petitioners involved in the said
petition.
5. In the written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 3-State,
there is reference to the Rapat No.192 dated 20.01.2004 and the mutation
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126809-DB
CWP No.1147 of 2020 with
two connected cases -4-
No.5081 dated 16.09.2013 and the fact that the land of the petitioners
affects the proposed planning of Industrial Group Housing, Green area and
30 meters wide road and the fact that the compensation as well as enhanced
compensation has already been lifted by the petitioners, which fact has not
been mentioned by the petitioners.
6. In the instant petition filed by petitioners Jagpal Rathee and
others, it has been pleaded by them that they are owners of the land in
question to the extent of their shares and resultantly, vide the impugned
order dated 03.06.2019 in pursuance of the earlier directions, the area had
been quantified as 06 acres 02 Kanals 06 Marlas which is lying vacant at
the site and the possession had already been taken by way of Kabza
Karwahi. Reference has been made to the land which has been released, as
has already been mentioned above, on 11.03.2013 in favour of the industry
concerned. The petitioners' land is stated to be, thus, duly acquired as per
the award and therefore, vide impugned order dated 03.06.2019, it was held
that the proceedings have not lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
7. In the written statement, the stand of respondents No.1 and 3-
State is that the land of the petitioners affects the planning of 18 meters
wide road, Industrial plots of Industrial Sector - 18, 18-A and 19 (part), IE,
Bahadurgarh. It has also been mentioned that earlier, the amount of
compensation had already been lifted by the petitioners and therefore, no
lapse can be sought by the petitioners under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126809-DB
CWP No.1147 of 2020 with
two connected cases -5-
8. In this petition filed by petitioners Sita Ram and others, the
detail of the land is projected as 06 Kanals to the extent of their share. As
per the impugned order dated 03.06.2019, the acquired land of the
petitioners measuring 14 acres 06 Kanals 18 Marlas is lying vacant at site
and the compensation had already been lifted by the petitioners involved in
the said petition. The enhanced compensation including the land of the
petioners stands deposited with the DRO-cum-LAC, Jhajjar for payment to
the land owners.
9. In the written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 3-State,
it has been clarified that the Kabza Karwahi was done vide Rapat No.192
dated 20.01.2004 and the mutation No.5081 was also sanctioned on
16.09.2013. The land has been acquired for public purpose, as mentioned
above, as per the lay out plan. The compensation as well as the enhanced
compensation has already been lifted by the petitioners and this fact has
been concealed by them.
Reasoning for Dismissal
10. The pleadings have, now, been scanned. The factual aspect of
the matrix comes forth that the twin conditions of violation for the purpose
of lapsing are not fulfilled as per the law laid down by the Constitutional
Bench in Indore Development Authority Versus Manohar Lal and others
(2020) 8 SCC 129. Rather, there is a concealment of facts that the
compensation had already stood deposited and even the petitioners have
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126809-DB
CWP No.1147 of 2020 with
two connected cases -6-
taken the enhanced compensation by filing Reference Petition under
Section 18 of the 1894 Act. In such circumstances, paragraph No.224 of
the above-said judgment would also come into play, which reads as under:-
"224. Thus, in our opinion, the word "paid"
used in Section 24(2) does not include within its
meaning the word "deposited", which has been used
in the proviso to Section 24(2). Section 31 of the Act
of 1894, deals with the deposit as envisaged in Section
31(2) on being 'prevented' from making the payment
even if the amount has been deposited in the treasury
under the Rules framed under Section 55 or under the
Standing Orders, that would carry the interest as
envisaged under Section 34, but acquisition would not
lapse on such deposit being made in the treasury. In
case amount has been tendered and the land-owner
has refused to receive it, it cannot be said that the
liability arising from non-payment of the amount is
that of lapse of acquisition. Interest would follow in
such a case also due to non-deposit of the amount.
Equally, when the land-owner does not accept the
amount, but seeks a reference for higher
compensation, there can be no question of such
individual stating that he was not paid the amount (he
was determined to be entitled to by the collector). In
such case, the land-owner would be entitled to the
compensation determined by the Reference court."
11. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that having
taken the compensation and on the other hand also having enjoyed the
usage of the land for all these long years, the petitioners are not entitled to
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126809-DB
CWP No.1147 of 2020 with
two connected cases -7-
any further indulgence by this Court. The respondent-State has already
justified the issue of discrimination by noticing that the release orders have
been issued in their favour and on account of certain land owners
approaching this Court and securing order in their favour and on account of
having construction in the form of industry as such and therefore, the
petitioners cannot claim any discrimination. Even otherwise, filing of these
writ petitions at the belated stage after a period of 18 years are not liable to
be entertained on account of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Versus The Industrial
Development & Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., 1996 (11) SCC 501;
Jasveer Singh and others Versus State of U.P. and another, 2017 (6) SCC
787 and Government of A.P. and others Versus Kollutla Obi Reddy and
others, AIR 2006 SC 642.
12. Since we are dismissing these writ petitions in limine as notice
of motion was never issued, we do not impose any cost upon the
petitioners.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
September 23, 2024 JUDGE
Yag Dutt
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: No
7 of 7
