Surinder Singh Brar and others etc. Vs. Union of India and others
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7454-7459 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 12877-12882/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7460-7463 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 13518-13521/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7464 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 13658/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7465 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 13758/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7466 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 13784/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7467 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 13785/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7468 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 13809/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7469 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 15355/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7470 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 15106/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7471 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 15782/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7472 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 16000/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7473 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 16002/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7474-7475 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 26589-26590/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7476 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 20417/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7477 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 20740/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7478 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 20919/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7479 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 22693/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7480 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 20853/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7481 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 21305/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7482 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 21612/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7483 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 25890/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7484-7485 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 17892-17893/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7486 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 20881/2011]
[Civil Appeal Nos. 7487 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 27221/2011]
[Civil Appeal No.7489 of 2012 arising out of SLP(C) No. 35545/2011]
G. S. Singhvi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Chandigarh, which is known all over the world as 'the City Beautiful', was planned by French Architect Monsieur Le Corbusier. The plan prepared by Le Corbusier in collaboration with two other architects, namely, Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew envisaged division of the city of Chandigarh into residential sectors with provision for markets, educational institutions, hospitals and other facilities.
3. After finalisation of the plan, the Government of Punjab acquired land of various villages for establishing Chandigarh as the new capital of the State and also constituted various committees including Land Scape Committee for implementing the plan. In the meeting of the Land Scape Committee held on 3.9.1954, the Divisional Forest Officer, Rupar (now Ropar) suggested that the land lying along the right bank of Sukhna Choeand the left bank of Patiala Ki Rao where plantation had been started by the Forest Department should be declared as reserved forest under Section 4of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900. This was approved by the Land Scape Committee, and Chief Engineer, P.W.D. was asked to furnish the details of the area. On receipt of necessary details of khasra numbers together with the plan of the area, which included residential and commercial plots, preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was issued by the State Government on 28.2.1956 and final notification under Section 20 of that Act was issued on 3.2.1961 declaring6724.19 acres land including about 6000 acres land which had already been utilised for construction of the first phase of Chandigarh, and about 280acres land falling in the revenue estates of village Hallo Majra and village Dalheri Rajputan as reserved forest. The State Government also acquired hilly area measuring 6172.09 acres of Sukhna lake catchment during1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64 for carrying out soil conservation works to reduce the silt in-flow into the lake. The Forest Department acquired536.64 acres of land of various villages along Sukhna Choe during 1963-64to carry out soil conservation and other improve mental works.
4. In 1966, the State of Punjab was re-organised under the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (for short, 'the 1966 Act') leading to the creation of the new State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigar hand transfer of some territories to State of Himachal Pradesh. With this,6706 acres land out of 6724.19 acres land declared as reserved forest vide notification dated 3.2.1961 was transferred to the Union Territory of Chandigarh and 6127.09 acres of land constituting hilly catchment came to vest in the Central Government by virtue of Section 48(5) of the 1966 Act.
5. With the passage of time, Chandigarh became an important destination for education and attracted students from all over the country. However, the employment opportunities available in the city did not match the educational facilities and this resulted in exodus of talent from Chandigarh to other cities. In the beginning of 21st Century the Chandigarh Administration took steps to provide various incentives including allotment of land to the entrepreneurs desirous of setting up industries in the field of information technology because that was expected to generate huge employment. In the first instance, the Administration decided that 111 acres land, which had been acquired between 1950 and 1977and was lying vacant, may be utilised for establishing a world class Information Technology Park in the name of Late Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi (for short, 'the IT Park'). This area was designated as Phase-I of the IT Park and the plots were allotted to the following:
S.No.
Name of Companies
Plot No.
Date of Allotment
Present Status
%age status of building
Size of land
1
Infosys
1
11.06.2004, 10.11.2005
Operational
100
30.21
S.No.
Name of Companies
Plot No.
Date of Allotment
Status of Operation
Size of land
1
Alchemist Ltd.
F-5
02.01.2006
Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11
70
1.3
2
Amadeus
B-11
07.12.2005
Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11
80
1.41
3
Bebo Technologies Ltd.
D-3
27.12.2006
Escavation done, expected to complete by Sep' 11
30
1.01
4
Compact Disc India
13
20.4 2009
Zoning plan issued, drawings will be submitted shortly
0
0.996
5
Damco Solutions Ltd.
13-A
16.8.2009
Zoning plan issued, drawings will be submitted shortly
0
0.9
6
FCS Software Solutions Ltd.
J-7
29.12.2005
Ground & First Floor operational
100
1.65
7
IDS Infotech Ltd.
1 to 8
2.1.2006
Escavation is on, expected to complete by Sep' 11
50
1.32
8
Karin Informatics Services Ltd.
14
01.06.2006
Applied for partial completion
100
1.5
9
Microtek International Pvt. Ltd.
A-12
2.01.2006
Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11
85
1.46
10
Netsmartz Infotech (1) Pvt. Ltd.
E-10
07.08.2006
Applied for partial completion
100
1.76
11
Net Solutions
15
05.06.2006
Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11
80
1.6
12
PCC Technology Group
C-4
17.03.2009
Letter of Allotment yet to be issued
0
1.1
13
RT Outsourcing Services Ltd.
16
12.06.2006
Building is complete & Ground Floor is operational
100
1.5
14
Second Foundation Inc.
G-9
15.12. 2005
Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11
95
1.48
15
Virsa Systems
H-6
28.12.2005
Structure completed, expected to complete by Sep' 11
80
1.3
16
DLF Infocity Developers Ltd.
2
23.12.2003
Already Operational since Sep' 05
100
12.5
6. Between 2000-2004 over 267 acres land was acquired for Phase-II of the IT Park and the plots were allotted to nine industries, the details of which are given below: SEZ Phase II Main Campus Site (in Acres)
S.No.
Name of Companies
Plot No.
Date of Allotment
Status of Operation
Size of land
1
Wipro Technologies Ltd.
27
Resumed
Resumed (in Acres)
0
30
Campus Sites (in Acres)
S.No.
Name of Companies
Plot No.
Date of Allotment
Status of Operation
Size of land
1
Tech Mahindra Ltd.
22-23. (in Acres)
26.05.2006
Operational since Oct'09
100
15
Built to Suit Sites (in Acres)
S.No.
Name of Companies
Plot No.
Date of Allotment
Status of Operation
Size of land
1
22nd Century Technologies Inc.
25-C
08.05.2008
Allotment awaited
0
0.67
2
KMG Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
25-A
05.04.2009
Allotment done, yet to submit drawings
0
1.1
3
Ramtech Software Solutions
26-A
12.03.2009
Drawings of proposed building submitted
0
0.52
4
Silicon Valley Systech Inc.
25-D
05.05.2008
SEZ approval awaited
0
0.67
5
Rolta India Ltd.
25-D
Resumed
0
2.98
Non-SEZ (in Acres) Campus Site
S.No.
Name of Companies
Plot No.
Date of Allotment
Status of Operation
Size of land
1
Bharti Airtel Ltd.
21
05.06.2006
Operational since Aug'09
100
5
7. The land allotted to Wipro Technologies Ltd. (30 acres), Rolta India Ltd. (2.98 acres) and e-Sys Technologies Ltd. (6 acres) was subsequently resumed because they failed to set up their units.
8. Out of the remaining land of Phase-II, 135 acres was transferred to the Chandigarh Housing Board (for short, 'the Board') vide order dated15.11.2005/1.12.2005 issued by the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration for development of residential and other infrastructural facilities in the IT Park. The relevant portions of that order are extracted below:
1. "The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh-, is pleased to order to the transfer of 135 acres of land in the Chandigarh Technology Park at Kishangarh in favour of the Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh, on free hold basis, for the execution of the project of development and residential and other infrastructural facilities in the said park. The price of the land, details of the land use and other terms and conditions of transfer of this land will be decided later on.
2. The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh is further pleased to designate the Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh as the Nodal Agency for executing the aforesaid project by engaging SBI Caps as consultants who would help fine tune the financial package, as also prepare the old document.
3. Broad guidelines are spelt out hereunder:- I. The whole exercise would involve a joint venture with the private party through an agreement, but without creating a joint venture company. II. No capital expenditure would be involved on the part of the Chandigarh Administration. III. The building and sale of all property would be left to the private party but all money will be received in the first instant by the Chandigarh Housing Board so that there is no under reporting of gross revenues.
4. The Chandigarh Housing Board will complete the process preliminary to the inviting of bids in 12 weeks or so and complete the work construction of the building within a period of 18 months or so.
9. "Though, the ostensible object of transferring land to the Board was development of residential and other infrastructural facilities in the IT Park, the real purpose was to benefit the private developers and this became evident from the decision taken in the meeting of the officers of the Chandigarh Administration held on 30.3.2006. Paragraphs 1(a), 8 and 9of the minutes of that meeting are reproduced below:
"1. Land Allotment.
a) The entire land including land under commercial will be allotted to CHB on free hold basis, however CHB will transfer the land under commercial use on lease hold basis as per the prevalent policy of Chandigarh Administration.
8. Modalities of disposal of service/studio apartments and commercial property The service/studio apartments and the commercial property shall be transferred to the developer on lease hold basis. The developer would be quoting and paying to CHB onetime cost of the service / studio apartments and the commercial property. 30% share will not be taken of the subsequent revenues from these two properties. 9. 10% Reservation for allotment to I.T. professionals. 10% dwelling units may be allowed to be purchased by I.T. companies established in Chandigarh or its employees. The detailed modalities will be worked out by CHB separately.
10. "In furtherance of the aforesaid decision, the Board invited bids for disposal of the land. M/s Parsvnath Developers Limited, who gave the bid ofRs.821.21 crores was allotted 123.79 acres land. However, after issuing a glamorous advertisement with the title Parsvnath - PRIDE ASIA, Chandigarh(An Address for Aristocratic Living) to attract prospective buyers of residential and commercial properties, M/s Parsvnath Developers appears to have abandoned the project and raised certain disputes which are pending before the arbitrator.
11. Soon after transfer of almost half of the land acquired for Phase-II to a private developer, Land Acquisition Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter described as, 'the LAO') sent Memo No. Teh.(LA)/LAO/2005/37365 dated 15.12.2005 to the Director, Information Technology, Chandigarh with reference to some meeting held on 9.12.2005under the Chairmanship of the Finance Secretary-cum-Secretary Information Technology, Chandigarh and asked him to provide the drawing of 50 acres land adjoining the IT Park for facilitating its acquisition. That memo reads under:
"From The Land Acquisition Officer,
UT, Chandigarh.
To
The Director Information Technology,
Chandigarh Administration,
Chandigarh.
Memo No. Teh (LA)/LAO/2005/37366
Dated, Chandigarh, the 15/12/05
Subject : Acquisition of land in Village Manimajra for 2nd phase of I.T. Park.
This refers to minutes of the meeting held on 09.12.2005 under the chairmanship of Sh. S.K. Sandhu, Finance Secretary/Secretary Information Technology, Chandigarh Administration, wherein it was emphasized to acquire 50 acres of land adjoining to the present I.T. Park in Kishangarh (Manimajra) for construction of 2nd phase of IT. Park.
You are, therefore, requested to provide drawing of the land required to be acquired so that further action to acquire the land is initiated.
Sd/-
Land Acquisition Officer,
UT, Chandigarh.
12. "The aforesaid memo sent by the LAO was clearly misleading because in the meeting held on 9.12.2005 no decision was taken for the acquisition of50 acres land adjoining the IT Park. This is evinced from the contents of the minutes of the meeting held on 9.12.2005, which are reproduced below:
"Minutes of the meeting held on 9.12.2005 under the Chairmanship of Sh. S.K. Sandhu, Finance Secretary/Secretary Information Technology, Chandigarh Administration. A meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Sh. S.K. Sandhu. Finance Secretary/Secretary Information Technology to review the progress of development of the first & second phases of Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park. The following officers were present :-
1. Smt. Renu Saigal, Chief Architect
2. Sh. V.K. Bhardwaj, Chief Engineer
3. Sh. Wazeer Singh Goyat, Land Acquisition Officer
4. Sh. Vivek Atray, Director Information Technology
5. Sh. N.S. Brar, Assistant Estate Officer.
6. Dr. Sanjay Tyagi, Director STPI Mohali.
7. Sh. M.L Arora, Senior Town Planner
8. Sh. Vaibhav Mittal, Promotion & Information Officer The following decisions were taken:-
1. It was decided that the infrastructure development for the second phase consisting of 120 acres for I.T. services and 130 acres for non IT service may be taken up by the Engineering Department as per the lay out plan prepared by the Urban Planning Department.
2. It was decided to start the work of construction of the internal road which leads to Build to Suit Sites at CTP Phase-1 on an urgent basis. The road next to Infosys is to be shifted as already urgently.
3. It was decided that the Build to Suit Sites which have already been allotted would be formally handed over to the allottees and their construction may begin by next month.
4. It was also decided that the power line in the entire area comprising CTP Phase-I and Phase-II may be shifted underground along the roads. 5. Five new Build to Suit Sites have also been earmarked as per the plan in the CTP Phase-I. This plan was approved.
5. Regarding land scaping it was decided that Chief Architect UT, Chief Engineer UT and Director Information Technology will decide the final plan from the 3 plans received from Chandigarh College of Architecture.
6. The Porta Structure for the Reception/Help Desk would be set up by CE/UT immediately.
7. It was decided to close the access from Mansa Devi side & from Indira Colony urgently.
8. Zoning of the Build to Suit Sites would be Finalized by 12.12.2005. '
Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the chair.
(S.K.Sandhu)
FS/SIT"
13. The Director, Information Technology sent DO No. 107 dated 12.1.2006to the LAO and requested him to take action as per the minutes of the meeting held on 9.12.2005. In turn, the LAO sent DO No.1294-95 dated16.01.2006 to the Director and reiterated the instructions contained in memo dated 15.12.2005. After 4 days, he sent letter dated 16.1.2006 to the Finance Secretary in the context of some meeting held on 4.1.2006 and pointed out that 280 acres land including 50 acres land already decided to be acquired for IT Park was available for acquisition. That letter reads asunder:
"From
The Land Acquisition Officer,
UT, Chandigarh
To,
The Finance Secretary,
Chandigarh Administration,
Chandigarh.
Memo No. Kgo (LA)/LAO/2006/1296
Dated, Chandigarh, the 16/1/06
Subject: Acquisition of remaining land in Village Manimajra, UT,
Chandigarh.
This refers to the minutes of the meeting held on 29.12.2005 under the chairmanship of the Finance Secretary-cum-Secretary, Information Technology, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, wherein it was decided to acquire 50 acres of land adjoining to the present I.T. Park in village Kishangarh (Manimajra) for construction of 2nd phase of I.T. Park.
Accordingly, the Director Information Technology, UT, Chandigarh, vide this office Memo No.37365 dated 15.12.2005 was requested to provide drawing of the land required to be acquired so that further action is initiated, but no communication has been received till date.
Subsequently, in a meeting held on 04.01.2006, it was desired to acquire the land of Village Manimajra as maximum as can be. Accordingly, an intensive survey of the area has been got conducted, according to which it has been found that 280 acres of land in Village Manimajra is available for acquisition. It is clarified here that this 280 acres include 50 acres of land already decided to be acquired for I.T. Park. However, there are about 275 structures in the shape of small houses in the locality called 'Shastri Nagar', 32 Farm-houses, 2 Nurseries and 2 Poultry-farms. The proposed land to be acquired has been shown on the map enclosed herewith.
If this land is decided to be acquired, a sum of Rs. 165 crores (approximately) would be required on account of compensation for land and trees/structures. It is pertinent to mention here that the farm- houses, in fact, are orchards having costly fruit-bearing trees, hence compensation of these fruit-bearing trees would be invariably very high.
You are, therefore, requested to convey the decision on the aforesaid proposal.
Land Acquisition Officer UT, Chandigarh.
Dated: 16/1/06"
14. Since, there was some confusion about the date of the meeting mentioned in the first line of the aforementioned letter, Dr Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the Union Territory of Chandigarh gave an assurance on 6.9.2012, i.e., the date on which the order was reserved, that the relevant minutes will be handed over to the Court Master. Thereafter, Shri S. K. Setia, Joint Secretary (Estates), Chandigarh Administration filed affidavit dated 10.9.2012, paragraph 4 whereof reads as under:
"4. That in response to courts query, the deponent respectfully submits as under: i) There was no meeting held on 29.12.2005. This is a typographical error in the letter dated 16.01.2006. The correct date of the meeting is 09.12.2005. This is self evident from various letters on the original file which refer to 09.12.2005 which are explained and annexed below. ii) There was a meeting held on 04.01.2006, which was attended by Land Acquisition Officer; Director, IT and Jt. Secretary (Finance). However, no minutes were recorded for that meeting, which is referred to in the letter dated 16.01.2006.
15. "After three months, the Finance Secretary sent memo dated 18.4.2006to the LAO requiring him to submit draft notification for the acquisition of 280 acres land in two parts. That letter reads as under:
"From
The Finance Secretary,
Chandigarh
Administration, No. PA/LAO/1019
Dt:20.4.06
To
The Land Acquisition Officer,
U.T. Chandigarh.
Memo No.43/3/157-UTFI(5)-06/2123
Dated, Chandigarh the 18.4.06
Subject: - Acquisition of land measuring 280 acres in village Kishangarh (Manimajra).
The matter regarding acquisition of land measuring 280 acres in village Kishangarh Manimajra has been discussed for the development of 2nd Phase of I.T. Park. It has been decided that the said land may be acquired in 2 parts, i.e. (140 acres + 140 acres). Your are therefore requested to take immediate necessary action and send draft notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act immediately so that the process of acquisition is started.
Superintendent Finance-I
for Finance Secretary,
Chandigarh Administration.
16. " In compliance of the directive given by the Finance Secretary, the LAO sent the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') for the acquisition of 104.83 acres land. The Adviser to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh (here in after described as, 'the Adviser') accorded his approval on 27.6.2006 and on the same day, the notification was sent for publication in the official gazette and the newspapers. The public purpose specified in the notification was "the provision of city level infrastructure, the regulated urban development of the area between Chandigarh and Mani Majra and the planned development and expansion of the Chandigarh Technology Park". The first four paragraphs of the notification read as under:
"CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION FINANCE DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
No.43/3/229-UTF(5)-2006/
Dated:
Whereas it appears to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, that the land in the locality specified below is likely to be needed for a public purpose namely for "the provision of city level infrastructure, the regulated urban development of the area between Chandigarh and Mani Majra; the planned development and expansion of Chandigarh Technology Park' in the village Mani Majra, H.B.No.375, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Now, therefore, this Notification under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the information of all concerned that it is hereby notified that the land in the said locality is to be needed for the said purpose.
And in exercise of the powers conferred by the aforesaid Section read with Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification Number 3612 dated 8th October, 1968, the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, is pleased to authorize the Officers for the time being engaged in undertaking this work with their servants and workmen to enter upon and survey the land in the locality and do all other acts required or permitted by that Section.
The person interested can file their objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within one month from the publication of the Notification before the Land Acquisition Collector, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
17. "On 2.8.2006, another notification was issued for the acquisition of167.50 acres land for the same purpose.
18. Surinder Singh Brar, who is one of the appellants in the lead case submitted representation dated 12.7.2006 to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh (hereinafter described as, 'the Administrator') and prayed that the land in question may not be acquired because large number of trees had been grown by the landowners and cutting of the same will adversely impact the environment and ecology of the area. Shri Braremphasized that the land already acquired for IT Park was lying unutilized and, therefore, there was no justification to acquire additional land. The Administrator rejected the representation of Shri Brar vide his letter dated 31.7.2006, which is reproduced below:
"General (Retd.) S.F. Rodrigues RAJ BHAVAN PVSM, VSM
CHANDIGARH 160019
Governor of Punjab and Administrator
Union Territory,
Chandigarh
JULY 31, 2006
I am in receipt of your representation dated 12.7.2006 regarding land acquisition & related issues. The issues raised mostly pertain to changes in the existing law, for which decisions are to be taken at different levels. The Administration has to perform its duty within the existing laws and therefore, there are a number of factors which have to be taken into account. The Administration has been acquiring the land for various development projects being implemented for the public good. You will agree that the future of U.T., Chandigarh does not lie in agriculture. Rather, we have to concentrate and invest in those sectors, where the factor productivity is relatively higher, and which offer our youth opportunities for advancement.
Land is the primary and essential requirement for any project and therefore the Administration has to go for its acquisition. The rate of compensation is determined as per the existing provisions of law and keeping in view the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts. The collector rates in Chandigarh have been revised twice, during the last year and the compensation has recently been paid to the tune of Rs. 40 to Rs. 45 lacs per acre. The award is further subject to legal scrutiny by courts, as the land owner has the liberty to approach them. You would appreciate that the Government is not a profit making organization and no surpluses are being generated from the acquisition of land. In fact, the so called surplus is the value addition due to the change of land use, which is invested for the development of the U.T. It would also be worthwhile to remind you that the Administration has to incur huge expenditure for the creation of public utility services and a large portion of the acquired land has to be kept vacant, to maintain the character of the city.
Apart from the above, Chandigarh Housing Board is taking care of the oustees, under its scheme of 1996. There really is no scope for any discretion in the process.
Yours sincerely,
[General (Retd.) S.F. Rodrigues
PVSM, VSM].
19. "Some of the landowners including Brig. Kuldip Singh Kehlon, who isone of the appellants in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.13518-13521/2011 filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005('RTI' Act) and sought information on various issues which had direct bearing on the acquisition of their land. Senior Town Planner-cum-Central Public Information Officer, Chandigarh Administration sent reply dated22.7.2007, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:
"The information of the paras relating to this office is as under:-
3 (vii) FAR Allowed in IT Park Area:
a. Built to suit site (BTS) 1.25
b. Campus sites 0.5
However, FAR can be increased to 0.75 on payment.
4(c) The Development Plan of the area being acquired: -
Planning for Ph.-1 and Ph.-II of Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park has been done. However the III phase of Chandigarh Technology Park is being acquired and planning for the same will be done after the acquisition and on receipt of survey plan from the Engineering Department, U.T., Chandigarh.
4(d) The area in question is not yet planned hence, detail of area cannot be provided.
4(1) THE PLANNING OF Phase I & II of the Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park has been completed. In the side area the planning has been done for IT and other related services/uses to IT Park i.e., Hotel, Grid Sub Station, Tube Wells, Commercial Area, reserve etc.
4(j,k) It is a policy matter to be decided at higher level.
5 (a) Originally the Chandigarh was planned for five lacs of population. As per the 2001 census the total population of Chandigarh is 9 lacs and it is envisaged that in the year 2021 the approximate population of Chandigarh will be 18 lacs approximately on the basis of growth rate projections.
(c) There is no legal master plan of the city. However, the planning of the land available within the jurisdiction of Chandigarh is being undertaken as per the future demands and needs of the city." (emphasis supplied)
20. The appellants and other landowners filed objections under Section5A(1) of the Act, the salient features of which were:
a. "The purpose for which the land is proposed to be acquired is not in fact 'public-purpose'.
b. The proposed acquisition is not in consonance with the Environment Law and proposed development will certainly damage the ecology of Sukhna Choe catchments area.
c. This acquisition is against the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which does not allow deforestation leading to environmental deterioration.
d. The Chandigarh Administration has not obtained permission of the Government of India for changing the land use of the land sought to be acquired.
e. The acquisition of land would involve chopping down of hundreds of fruit and non-fruit bearing trees of more than 15 years age.
f. This area works as lungs to the residents of the City. After acquisition of this area and construction of high buildings, no breathing area will left for the residents of Chandigarh.
g. The land is being acquired for four different purposes, but the Administration itself does not know as to how much area would be utilized for each and individual purpose.
h. The Chandigarh Administration has acquired large chunks of land over past 15 years, most of which is still lying unutilized or encroached. He enumerated a number of notifications issued by the Chandigarh Administration vide which the lands have been acquired by the Chandigarh Administration.
i. The land is being acquired with the intention or profiteering.
j. The Chandigarh Administration has not been able to provide a proper plan for the development and utilization of the land to be acquired.
k. The Administration has not framed any scheme for rehabilitation of the landowners whose land is acquired and they have been uprooted more than once.
l. Only 10% of the flats would be built on 129 acres of land given to Parsvanath Developers and the developer is likely to accrue immense tax relief on the basis of the units being built in the SEZ.
m. Most of the land stands already acquired and reserved for I.T Park has not so far utilized then what is the necessity to acquire this land.
n. Where the acquisition of this land will uproot the farmers from their livelihood and abode, it would immensely damage the green cover of the city and about 50000 fully grown trees would also be chopped down. The Administration on one hand does not allow even a tree to be cut, though it is on the mettalled road in terms of Forest Act, then how the Administration would afford to cut the 20 years old fruit/non-fruit bearing trees.
o. The acquisition of land is in violation of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952. The Periphery Control Act was enacted to ensure the outskirts of the city as green belt.
21. " For the sake of reference, some of the objections filed by Shri Surinder Singh Brar and Shri Kuldip Singh Kahlon are reproduced below: Surinder Singh Brar: "Notification not proper hence liable to be quashed: The impugned notification is liable to be quashed as the public purpose mentioned therein is vague as it is not possible for the right holders to raise objections against the same under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 effectively. The total area under acquisition is less than 168 acres. There are four purposes mentioned for which the land is sought to be acquired without specifying as to how much land is needed for each purpose. The four purposes mentioned are:
i. the provision of city level infrastructure
ii. the regulated urban development of area between Chandigarh and Mani Majra
iii. the planned development
iv. expansion of Chandigarh Technology Park. The petitioner does not know as to how much area is needed for either of these purposes, what is the meaning of city level infrastructure and what is the difference between regulated urban development and planned development. In fact 100 acres of land is not big enough an area for either of the purposes in itself. Therefore, to enable the right holders to raise objections effectively they must know as to how much area is required for each purpose and how the purposes mentioned are different from each other, particularly item numbers (i), (ii) and (iii).
The impugned acquisition proceedings have been undertaken without the concurrence of the Defence Ministry, Government of India. Chandigarh is surrounded by strategic defence installations like the Mullapur Garibdas Air Force Station, Head Quarters of the Western Command at Chandimandir, Chandigarh Air Force Station, Kasauli Air Force Station, etc. In fact the Mullapur Garibdas Air Force Station houses most modern missiles and radars while Chandimandir houses a strategic communication centre. Thus, urbanising the area in Village Mani Majra, District Chandigarh may lead to compromising with the security of the nation.
Violation of the Periphery Act: The impugned notification itself is violative of the provisions of the Periphery Control Act in so far as the permissions required under the said Act have not been obtained by the Chandigarh Administration. The Chandigarh Administration is a separate entity from the authorities exercising the powers under the Periphery Control Act. To the knowledge of the objectors no permission has been obtained, as of date, by the Chandigarh Administration for the development of the aforementioned land from the authority under the Periphery Control Act and consequently the entire acquisition proceedings are illegal, null and void.
Over the past 15 years the Chandigarh Administration has compulsorily acquired huge chunks of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh purportedly for various public purposes. However, in most cases the areas acquired have not been fully utilized and are either lying vacant or have been encroached upon. In this scenario the action of the Chandigarh Administration to acquire another huge chunk of land in Village Manimajra under the impugned notification is incomprehensible and cannot be justified. The details of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where under land has earlier been acquired by Chandigarh Administration in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh but large chunks whereof are still lying unutilized or under encroachment are as under:
Notification No.3/117-UTFI(4)-89/12204 dated 11.9.1989 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering 29.07 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh for the public purpose of "resident-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2"; Notification No.3/117-UTFI(4)-89/12209 dated 11.9.1989 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering 39.27 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh for the public purpose of "residential-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2 and construction of multi-specialty hospital"; Notification No.3/117-UTFI(4)-89/12539 dated 18.10.1989 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering 29.75 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh for the public purpose of "residential-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2" Notification No.3/117-UTFI(4)-89/12544 dated 18.10.1989 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering 37.55 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh for the public purpose of "residential-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2"; Notification No.3/117-UTFI(4) 1361 dated 13/14.2.1990 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering 36.37 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh for the public purpose of "residential-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2"; Notification No.3/117-UTFI(4)-90/1366 dated 13/14.2.1990 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering 21.51 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh for the public purpose of "residential-cum-commercial complex scheme no.2"; Notification No.3/117-UTFI(4)-91/7628 dated 8.8.1991 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering 40.84 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh for the public purpose of "residential-cum-commercial; complex scheme no.3"; Notification No. UTFI(4)-93/903 dated 29.1.1993 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering 54.37 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh for the public purpose of "residential-cum-commercial complex and for the construction of a college building and sports stadium etc. scheme no.3"; Notification No.UTFI(4)-93/906 dated 29.1.1993 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act covering 39.96 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh for the public purpose of "residential-cum-commercial complex and for the construction of municipal park and public utility building scheme no.3"; Notification no.A-32017/15/PI/91/28 dated 27.11.1991 issued under Section 4 of the LA Act covering 56.14 acres of land in Village Manimajra, District Chandigarh for the public purpose of "setting up nurseries".Public purpose not defined: In the impugned notification the Chandigarh Administration has proposed to acquire the land for the alleged public purpose of:
"the provision of city level infrastructure, the regulated urban development of the area between Chandigarh and Mani Majra, the planned development and expansion of Chandigarh Technology Park" in village Manimajra.
The setting-up or expansion of a technology park, for which the land in dispute is also sought to be acquired, is not a public purpose. In fact, the Chandigarh Administration itself has neither developed nor is it running the technology park but has allotted the land to DLF Ltd., a private entrepreneur for this purpose. DLF Ltd. has profiteered by selling the area further to other private companies. Thus the whole idea behind the impugned acquisition proceedings is to assist a private entrepreneur to profiteer. No person from the ordinary public will be benefited in any way.
In today's age and economy a private entrepreneur can very well purchase land by private negotiations instead of the State assisting him. If the Chandigarh Administration is bent upon urbanising the green belt against all respect for the ecology and environment, then why are the landowners themselves not allowed to develop their land within the set development plan as opposed to taking the land away from the small agriculturists and selling it further to private developers at a huge profit, thus playing the role of land brokers. As no real public purpose has clearly been defined by the Chandigarh Administration in the impugned notification i.e building roads for common use etc. it is clear that it is for the purpose of a particular industry only.
The Chandigarh Administration ought to define in clear terms as to what it means by public purpose. How does a particular private industry become a "public purpose". The purported purposes for which the land in dispute is sought to be acquired under the impugned notification are the provision of city level infrastructure, the regulated development of the area between Chandigarh and Manimajra, the planned development and expansion of Chandigarh Technology Park. The said alleged public purposes mentioned in the impugned notification are extremely vague and non-specific leaving one completely in the dark as to what actually the Chandigarh Administration intends to do with the acquired land.
No particular residential or commercial scheme has been drawn up by the Chandigarh Administration for acquiring the land in dispute. The acquisition of valuable land under the impugned notification thus amounts to a colourable exercise of power by the Chandigarh Administration. Under the impugned notification the purported public purpose for which the land in dispute is being acquired is stated to be planned and regular development as well as provision of city level infrastructure. It is not understandable as to how the same land can be developed to provide city level infrastructure which necessarily means urbanization. The concern for the ecology and environment is completely necessary. Rather the acquisition under the impugned notification would lead to complete destruction of the land sought to be acquired under the impugned notification.
The public purpose must not only be specified in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but in order to enable an objector to effectively object under Section 5-A the details of the public purpose, alongwith the details of the scheme, the plans etc. must be available in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector for perusal of the objector. In the present case as no such plan/scheme is available in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector or any other office, it is apparent that the alleged public purpose is merely an attempt by the Chandigarh Administration to acquire the land with the sole object of using it at a later date for whatsoever purpose that may be required.
No public purpose has been spelt out nor any public purpose has been established for the proposed acquisition. In any case the proposed construction of the IT Park is not a conducive measure because of the fact that it is closer to the defence area adjoining Chandimandir and can interfere in the communication system and sensitive defence installations. The public purpose mentioned is vague and as such it is not possible for the right holders to raise objections against the same, under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 effectively.
Violation of Environmental and Forest Laws:
The land in dispute is very close to the Sukhna Lake and adjacent to the Sukhna Choe and the area declared as a reserved forest. If the land in dispute and its surrounding areas are allowed to be urbanised it will result in the degradation of the habitat and disturb the thousands of migratory birds which come every year to the Sukhna Lake. It may be mentioned here that the Sukhna Lake is a wetland declared by the Central Government and is a protected area and is known as the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary. If high rise buildings are allowed to be constructed on the land being acquired under the impugned notification it will affect the migratory route of the thousands of birds which make their nests in the Sukhna Lake area after migrating from as far as Siberia in Russia. Permitting urbanisation next to the Sukhna Lake and next to the surrounding reserve forest will be a death knell for the precious wildlife and fauna existing there.
Though trees may be able to survive the onslaught of urbanisation, wild animals and birds certainly will not be able to do so and they would have to move to safer habitats away from human habitation. It would also be pertinent to mention here that the land sought to be acquired is forest land as also agricultural land. The proposed acquisition will result in the extinction, uprooting & leveling of these trees which are in the prime of life. The proposed acquisition is violative of the climate and environmental laws. The acquisition of the land in dispute would involve chopping down of fruit bearing trees and non fruit bearing trees. Under the provisions of the Forest Act no tree in Chandigarh can be cut without permission of the Central Government.
In case the Central Government decides not to grant the permission to the Chandigarh Administration to chop down trees standing on the land in dispute, the entire acquisition proceedings would end up in a nullity with wastage of huge sums of money and man-hours. The land sought to be acquired under the impugned notification is basically agricultural land on which, apart from crops, there are hundreds of fruit bearing trees and non-fruit bearing trees standing. This green area acts as a barrier between the urbanized areas in Chandigarh and Panchkula in Haryana. This green and forested area also helps in stopping soil erosion into the Sukhna Choe.
The removal of this green and forested area would result in soil erosion which is like to cause flash floods in the rainy season thus putting in danger the city of Chandigarh itself. As such the dangers to the ecology and subsequently to the city itself can well be imagined if the acquisition under the impugned notification is allowed to stand. The havoc caused along the banks of the choe and in the village of Kishangarh in particular during the recent rainy season is not something to be taken lightly. With the urbanization and choking of Sukhna Choe/Lake catchment area Chandigarh itself will be liable to immense danger of floods which can be life threatening to its citizen as we have seen in the recent past. The Chandigarh Administration needs to define its role viz a viz the citizen, is it here to protect us or to endanger our lives.
Chandigarh needs to be protected and that is what the Chandigarh Administration should be doing. That in any case, no resolution for change has been passed for conversion of the proposed land from the zoning area which is forest land area/green belt prior to the date of the publication of the notice. Thus the notification is vitiated on this ground alone. The proposed acquisition will also disturb the ecological plants and flora and fauna of the area because the proposed acquisition will also disturb the dense forest area having more than 50,000 grown trees which are more than 30 years old. Forests and orchards are the lungs of a city and have a very important environmental function to perform. Such lands cannot be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The Chandigarh Administration has not carried out an Environmental Impact Assessment study which is extremely necessary before an exercise of this magnitude is carried out. Further more it needs to be pointed out that if the recent happenings in the country are any indication, it is essential to carry out a geological study of the area and conduct surveys before deciding to demolish the green belt around Chandigarh which the Chandigarh Administration has not done.
Every place cannot be suitable for the multi-storied monsters of steel and concrete that are bound to come up on the land once acquired. Nature is beautiful but it does demand obedience to its ordinances. When violated the earth erupts and we have earthquakes. Man cannot continue to 'pick nature's pocket'. He must discipline himself.
No Planning/Scheme exists and Discrimination:
The impugned notification is illegal and void in as much as no plans are available in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector with respect to the alleged city level infrastructure to be set up. There is no plan available for the protection of the ecology and environment and for setting up/expansion of the Chandigarh Technology Park. The petitioner reserve their rights to file such objections as and when these plans are made available. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that no the plans for the Chandigarh Technology Park and the scheme for protection of ecology and environment of Sukhna Choe Watershed was available in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector.
A representative of the petitioner was informed by the office of the Chief Architect that none of the above particulars/scheme/site plans were available with them as none have been framed/drawn up by the Chandigarh Administration nor is relevant urban planning data available. It is thus apparent that in the absence of any detail plans and data with respect to the avowed public purpose, the alleged public purpose is a mere sham and, therefore, violates the rights of the petitioner to effectively object to the proposed acquisition in terms of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Consequently the entire proceedings are illegal, null and void.
The Chandigarh Administration has not even designated a planning agency that could have shown how the area under acquisition is to be developed and utilized. The Chandigarh Administration has not been able to produce a proper plan for the development of the so-called Technology Park. No consideration seems to have been taken of the following points:
a. geographical features that is physiography, climate, water, soils and other physical resources;
b. means of communication and accessibility;
c. distribution of the present and future population;
d. industrial location and growth trends;
e. economic base and commercial activities;
f. preservation of historical and cultural heritage;
g. urban expansion and periphery management;
h. ecological and environmental balance;
i. balanced regional development of the City Beautiful;
j. dispersal of economic activities to alleviate pressure on the city.
It is clear that no such plan existed at the time issuance of the impugned notification and therefore the petitioner have been denied a basic right of examining the plans and other documents asked for.
" Kuldip Singh Kahlon:
"VIOLATION OF PERIPHERY CONTROL ACT:
The land in question falls within the periphery of Chandigarh and the Periphery Control Act, 1951 regulates its use. The purpose of this legislation is to prohibit any activity that is non-agricultural and to that extent even prohibits the landowners from constructing houses for their own living. The UT Administration, has been forcefully implementing this Act and penalizing those who violate any of its provisions. The provisions of the Periphery Control Act cannot apply differently for the public and differently the Administration. This would be arbitrary and discriminatory and be violative of all settled principles and tenets of law. The public purpose for which the land is being acquired is not covered or permitted by the periphery control act, and therefore, the notification is void ab initio. The State cannot be the violator of its own laws to the detriment of the public. The notification deserves to be withdrawn on this account alone.
MARKET VALUE, MAKING UNDUE AND ILLEGAL PROFIT BY THE UT
ADMINISTRTION/ITS AGENCIES:
The sole purpose of the Administration appears to be is to use public funds to acquire land and sell it at high profits. The market value of land is artificially suppressed by disallowing any activity, other than agriculture, by the UT Administration. The market forces are not allowed to operate so long as land is in the hands of the landowners. The Collector Tate therefore cannot and does not reflect the market value of the land. This situation changes when the land is in the hands of the UT Administration or its Agencies, This is proved from the fact that 129 acres of land in village Manimajra was acquired in the year 2002 and compensation between Rs. 9-12 lacs per acre was paid by the UT Administration.
The same was transferred to Chandigarh Housing Board at no cost, which further sold at profit to developers namely: Parsvanath Developer Private Limited for a sum of Rs. 821.21 crores or approx. 630 lacs per acre. This is approximately 70 times the collector's rate. It is important to note that undeveloped land was sold to this company, which means that the UT Administration acquired land at low price and without making any investment on it sold it at a higher profit. This is extremely unfair to the farmers who have struggled rate does not reflect a realistic/actual value of the land, in this area. Going by the sale mentioned above, the market value of the land in village Manimajra is not less than Rs.630 lacs per acre.
VIOLATION OF MASTER PLAN:
The development of Chandigarh is regulated by its Master plan. The land proposed to be acquired falls in the ecologically fragile green belt along the lake and Sukhna choe. Any land use change will not only threaten the environment of the city but will also disturb the habitat of a large species of flora arid fauna. It is public knowledge that no lay out plan for this area has been neither prepared nor other formalities completed as mandated by the land acquisition Act and the FCs Standing Order 28. Acquisition of land without first amending the master Plan by following due procedure prescribed by law and without clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forests will be bad in law.
22. "The LAO heard the objectors, briefly noticed the substance of their objections but did not deal with any one of them and submitted separate reports in relation to the two notifications with identical observations, which are extracted below:
"OBSERVATIONS:
After seeing the revenue record and spot inspection, I find no merits in the objections raised by the Objectors. Because, for the future extension of the Capital and to ensure healthy & planned development, and further, to prevent growth of slums and ramshackle construction on the land lying on the periphery of the 'new city', area of 10 miles on all sides from the outer boundary of the land was declared as 'controlled area'. In order to have legal authority to control and regulate the use of the land, the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act was enacted in 1952. The structures as existed on the site called Shastri Nagar have been raised in violation of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952.
The Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (two Acts governing the planning and development of UT, Chandigarh) envisaged Chandigarh as urbanized town or capital city in which ramshackle construction is antithetical to the very concept and planning of Chandigarh. This is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons and Section 1(2) of the latter act which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference that whole of the area of UT was part of 'Capital Project' and was kept reserved for future expansion to be required and acquired: -
"Statement of Objects and Reasons.-
The Punjab Government are constructing a New Capital named "Chandigarh". The master plan providing for the future extension of the Capital will extend over a much greater area than the area acquired so far the construction of the first phase of the Capital.
