Vilayati Ram Tayal v. State of Haryana etc

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Ashok Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** JASBIR SINGH, J. This order will dispose of CWP Nos.1623, 1680, 1703, 1913, 2087 and 2461 of 1988 and 16998 of 1989 as common facts and question of law are involved. To dictate order, facts of case are mentioned from CWP No.1623 of 1988. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner pray for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 04.03.1983 and

27.02.1986 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') respectively, proposing to acquire a vast chunk of land measuring 80.21 acres of land including 50 sq. yards of land (shop) owned by the petitioner. The acquisition was challenged on many grounds including that the objection under Section 5-A of the Act, filed by the petitioner to the proposed acquisition, was not heard as per law. It was further averred that by releasing land of other similarly situated land-owners and not giving the same relief to the petitioner discrimination has been CWP No.1623 of 1988 (O&M) -2- done to him which is not justified. This matter was heard on

17.03.2009 when following order was passed by this Court: “This petition seeks quashing the notification dated

04.03.1983 under Section 4 and notification dated

27.02.1986 under Section of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act'). The case of the petitioner is that earlier the land of the petitioner was proposed to be acquired but after hearing the objections of the petitioner, the proposal was dropped in the year 1981 and thereafter vide notification dated 04.03.1983, the land of the petitioner was again sought to be acquired. Grounds put forward in the petition are that there was no hearing of objections of the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act and there was discrimination in releasing the adjacent land and not releasing the land of the petitioner. Notification was not published in the locality as required under Section 4 of the Act. Having regard to location of the land of the petitioner, the same could not have been acquired for development of Sector 8 HUDA, Ambala City, which is the purpose of acquisition, as per the notification.

No reply appears to have been filed. Learned counsel for the State has shown a copy of the reply, available with him. According to the stand taken in the said reply, requirement or publication and hearing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act was complied with. The land, was required for widening of Ambala-Hisar road. Learned counsel for the State relies on the judgment of this Court dated 23.05.2007 in CWP No.2124 of 1988 Anil Parkash vs. State of Haryana and others, wherein connected petition was dismissed holding that although notification reflects the purpose to be development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area of Sector 8, Urban Estate, Ambala, it does not create any legal bar to utilise the land for an ancillary purpose of widening CWP No.1623 of 1988 (O&M) -3- of Ambala-Hisar road. It was also held that writ petition having been filed after the passing of the award was not maintainable.

Only point, which is now pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since adjoining land was not being acquired as mentioned in para 7 of the reply, the plea that land of the petitioner was required for widening of road was not substantiated. Learned counsel for the State seeks time to show whether land of the petitioner is within the alignment of road widening and if so, why adjacent land is not included therein. Adjourned to 16.04.2009.” It was found as a matter of fact by the Court that objections under Section 5-A of the Act were notified as per procedure prescribed under the Act and the petitioner was also heard when findings were given regarding those objections. It was also noticed that a writ petition (CWP No.2124 of 1988 Anil Parkash vs. State of Haryana and others) assailing the above said acquisition of land was dismissed by this Court on 23.05.2007. Taking note of facts of this court, a direction was issued to the State counsel to show that the land owned by the petitioner falls in the road alignment.

In response thereto an affidavit of Ram Kumar, District Town Planner, Ambala has been placed on record. The relevant extract of the affidavit reads thus: “2. That the land of petitioner under shop measuring area 50 sq. yds. falls in Khasra No.13//5/1(min) in the revenue estate of village Patti Mehar, Jalbera Chowk (Ambala Hisar Road) Ambala City. The location of the shop is shown on the Shajra Plan and Layout Plan annexed as annexure A & B respectively. CWP No.1623 of 1988 (O&M) -4-

That the land of the petitioner under khasra No.13//5/1 min alongwith adjoining land falling under khasra Nos.1//25min 2//32min, 36 min, 37min, 13//30,31 and 2//21/1min being part of the pocket marked on the plan as A,B,C,D was notified under Section 4 on 4.3.1983 and under Section 6 on 27.2.1986 of the land acquisition act, 1894. The award of the same was announced on

23.2.1988.

That at present some constructions raised on the adjoining land are encroachments on the acquired land.

That as per record available no adjacent land was excluded from notification under Section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

That land under khasra No.13//5/1min falls within the alignment of the future road widening.” It is specifically mentioned in the affidavit that land owned by the petitioner falls within a road alignment and is needed for future widening of the road. Counsel for the petitioner failed to show that any discrimination has been done with the petitioner. There is nothing on record that the adjoining land, owned by the similarly situated land- owners, was released from the acquisition. In view of the facts mentioned above, this writ petition is dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge December 08, 2010 (Augustine George Masih) Judge