Surinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Addl.A.G. Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of CWP Nos.12312 of 1990 and 13184 of 1990, involving similar questions of law and facts. For the purpose of dictating order, facts are being mentioned from CWP No.12312 of 1990. This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to a notification dated 21.4.1987, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), to acquire 28.04 acres of land for a public purpose, namely, to develop the land as residential and commercial area. Civil Writ Petition No.12312 of 1990 2 Further challenge has been made to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act, on 20.4.1988, declaring intention of the respondents to acquire

27.47 acres of land. Award was pronounced on 12.4.1990. This writ petition was filed thereafter on 11.9.1990. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that award, mentioned above, was vitiated because no compensation was provided for the super-structures existing over the land, in dispute. It is further contended that a building of the petitioners was not released, whereas adjoining land falling in khasra No.30//21/2, with construction thereon was released from acquisition. Upon notice, reply was filed wherein it is stated that when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, there was no construction in the land owned by the petitioners. The construction was raised subsequent thereto. It is further stated that the notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were published as per procedure provided under the Act. Despite opportunity given, the petitioners failed to file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act.

It is further stated that the land falling in khasra No.30//21/2 was released because construction was existing in that land, which was raised before the issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are not inclined to interfere at the instance of the petitioners. In the reply filed, it is specifically stated that when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, there was no construction in the land owned by the petitioners. To the averments made, no replication has been filed. There is nothing on record to show that any construction was in Civil Writ Petition No.12312 of 1990 3 existence when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. Furthermore, once, the petitioners have not filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Act, it is not open for them to lay challenge to the acquisition of their land.

In view of ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, AIR 1999 SC 3822, writ petition at the instance of a land owner, who has not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act, is not maintainable. Further contention of counsel for the petitioners that award is vitiated because it does not provide compensation for the super-structures, is also liable to rejected, firstly, on the ground that there was no construction when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, secondly, if no compensation was provided for the super-structures and it was due, then the petitioners, to claim the same should have agitated their rights by filing an application under Section 18 of the Act. In view of ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohanji and another v. State of U.P. and others, JT 1995 (8) SC 599, on account of the above said fact, award cannot be set aside.

It is also an admitted fact that the writ petition was filed after passing of the award. In view of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 Civil Writ Petition No.12312 of 1990 4 Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, no relief can be granted to the petitioners on this score also. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge

17.12.2010 (Augustine George Masih) Judge