Parties Name v. State of Haryana & Ors.

alternative, it has been stated by Shri M.L.Sharma, counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners will be well satisfied in case the respondents exempt only 5 Marlas plots and acquire rest of the land. To strengthen that prayer, a reference has been made to the allotment of 4 Marlas plots to the residents of Devi Lal Colony, situated next to the land of the petitioners. In reply and also before us at the time of arguments, claim of the petitioners has been refuted by the respondents by stating that the writ petition having been filed after passing of the award on May 27, 1985, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3707 OF 1991 -3- deserves dismissal on account of delay. Furthermore, merely because land of some other right holders was released from acquisition, the petitioners cannot claim similar treatment. Prayer was made for dismissal of this writ petition. Before proceeding further to decide the issue in question, it is necessary to note down few facts regarding quantum of land proposed to be acquired and actually acquired. Sr. No. Name of village Land proposed to be acquired u/S 4 of the Act. 1 2 3 4 5 Sarai Pilkhan Taraf Afgan Ugrakhedi

53.50 Acres.

503.6 Acres

39.09 Acres Malik Ugrakheri

18.56 Acres Kheri:

51.53 Acres After disposal of objections under Section 5-A of the Act, following land was ordered to be acquired: Sr. No. Name of village Land released:

5. Pilkhan Entire land left out of acquisition TarfAfgan

214.65 Acres Ugrakhan

33.88 Acres MalikUgrakheri

8.75 Acres Kheri Entire land left out of acquisition. Facts, mentioned above, clearly indicate that about 50% of the area proposed to be acquired was left out of acquisition. So far as petitioners' land is concerned, the Patwari in his survey report dated July 23, 1983, stated as under: CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3707 OF 1991 -4- “The objector is a Member of a Society called Gandhi Dham Housing Society. The members of this Society are poor persons who have purchased small plots for raising houses for their own residence. This colony adjoins a road and does not interfere with the Scheme in any manner. It would therefore be proper to exempt this land from acquisition.” It is also an admitted fact that after passing of the award on May 27, 1985, vast track of land was exempted from acquisition. As per para 11 of the amended writ petition, 7 ½ Acres of land was released in Teachers' Colony. This land was purchased by the concerned owners after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, i.e., on March 22, 1983, March 31, 1983 and April 10, 1984. An area of 5 Acres was released in favour of Gandhi Karyakarta Sehkari Awas Samiti. Further an area of 16 Kanals was released in favour of Fateh Singh Saini, Advocate. 8 Kanals of land was released in favour of one M/S Shakti Enterprises. It is further an admitted fact that respondent decided to allot 6 Marlas' plots to the residents of Devi Lal Colony, situated near colony of the petitioners. However, on account of non-availability of area at that place, only 4 Marlas' plot was ordered to be allotted. It is also evident on record that the authorities had released land to various persons, detail of which was given at pages 115 and 116 of the writ petition. By looking at the facts, mentioned above, we can safely say that grave injustice has been done to the petitioners, who belong to lower strata of the Society and had purchased small plots before and within three CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3707 OF 1991 -5- to eight weeks of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Narration of facts, mentioned above, clearly shows that when Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued, about 50% of the land proposed to be acquired was kept out of acquisition. After issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, vast track of land was released from acquisition and even after passing of the award, release was ordered in favour of many land owners. In the written-statement, filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector, no word has been said as to how case of the petitioners was different from those in whose favour release orders were passed. Perusal of document Annexure P1/R dated April 26, 1988 (after passing of the award in this case) indicates that even vacant plots were left out of acquisition. Description of the land is as under: Name of Land owner Land which has been released Sh. Vinod Kumar Aggarwal, M/S Jagdamba Handlooms Industries, Panipat 17 Marlas Khasra No. 33/4 Sh. Radhey Shyam Gian Chand etc. Sanoli Road, Panipat 14 Marla Plot Sh. Jogi Ram, Satya Pal etc. 8 Marla Plot Sh. R.N. Kataria, R/o P.G.I., Chandigarh 2-2 Plots to Brothers & one addl. Plot to R.N.Kataria, Sh. Total 04 Plots Memo No. of the Director vide which the land has been released R-4-86/701, 17.8.87. U.E-111-87/1048, dated 2.4.87 U.E-111-87/1053, dated 9.4.87 U.E.-111-/705, dated 17.3.97 Sh. Dharam Pal s/o Mansa Ram R/o Panipat, Shri Trilok Chand and Smt. Kamla Devi 03 Plots of 10 – 10 Marla U.E-111-87/1872, dated 9.4.87 Sh. Harish Kataria, 205-R, Model Town, Panipat

473.5 Sq. Meter M/s Super Finishing Industries, Panipat 300 Sq. Meter 3 U.E. -87/1887, dated 4.6.87 R-4-87/1842, dated 8.4.87 Sh. Roop Chand son of Sh. Gorkha R/o Village Ugrakheri, Panipat 10 Marla Plot U.E-111-87/1042 dated 9.4.87 Smt. Ram Devi d/o Sh. Sero Ram, Resident of Vill. Ugrakhedi, Panipat 10 Marla plot 1061, dated 9-4-87 Gandhi Worker, Coop. House Samiti, Panipat Four plots of 2 Kanal each U.E.-111-87/1087 dated 9.4.87 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3707 OF 1991 -6- Name of Land owner Land which has been released Brig. Narinder Singh, Sohn Vihar Apartment, New Delhi 338 Sq. Meter M/S Shakti Enterprises Four Plots of 02 Kanal each 11 12 Memo No. of the Director vide which the land has been released 111-87/3381, U.E. dated 9.4.87 Similarly, perusal of documents Annexure P-1/S dated April 9, 1987, shows that 2 Kanals' land was released in favour of Gandhi Workers Co-Operative House Samiti. Vide document Annexure P1/T, decision was taken to allot 4 Marlas plot to residents of Devi Lal Colony on December 11, 2002. In view of above facts, objection of the respondents that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed having been filed after passing of the award is liable to be rejected. Even after passing of the award, as per evidence on record, the petitioners had been making representations to release their land by stating that their plots fall in a developed colony, site plan of which was put on record, as Annexure P1/P. However, nothing was done, whereas to the contrary, the respondents continued to release land in favour of several land owners even after passing of the award. In the written-statement, nothing has been said as to how case of the petitioners is different from those in whose favour release orders have been passed. We are of the view that such a discriminatory attitude at the hands of the authorities, especially with those, who belong to poor strata of the Society, is not justified. Counsel for the petitioners by making reference to document Annexure P-1 at page 166 of the writ petition brought it to our notice that in most of the plots, the petitioners had raised construction. This fact is even admitted in the written-statement. Once the respondents had decided to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3707 OF 1991 -7- release vacant land in favour of many right holders, as has been narrated in the earlier part of this order, the authorities were duty bound to consider claim of the petitioners also for release of their land may be in the same manner as has been done in the case of residents of Devi Lal colony, situated next to the colony of the petitioners. Perusal of the site plan Annexure P-1/Q shows the extent of land exempted from acquisition and then released after passing of the award. Colony of the petitioners is situated in between Sector road and old Ojha Road, as has been mentioned by the Patwari in his report. Release of land in this colony will not hamper over all implementation of the development scheme. The land was acquired for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. If allotment of plots do not hamper the implementation of the plan, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should have been adjusted at the place, where they had raised their houses. As is evident from record, if small plots are allotted to the petitioners, in their colony, it will not hamper implementation of the scheme at all. At the time of arguments, Shri M.L.Sharma, Advocate, has very fairly stated that all the petitioners will be satisfied if only 5 Marla plots are allotted to them in the colony carved out by them. Rest of the land may be acquired by the respondents. This offer of Mr. Sharma is a reasonable one. We are of the opinion that rehabilitation of the petitioners is required in this case. Most of them had purchased small plots for residential purposes, before issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 2025, has observed that the authorities should make an attempt to rehabilitate the land owners, whose CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3707 OF 1991 -8- land was acquired, by offering them residential plots etc. Furthermore, their lordships of the Supreme Court in Hari Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, Judgments Today 2010(2) Supreme Court 235, has held that releasing land of some of the land owners and denying the same to others, even though land of all were acquired in the same process, is certainly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of established law, as mentioned above, we can safely say that the petitioners are also entitled to get release of their land in the same manner, in which release orders were passed in favour of many other right holders, whose land was acquired with the land of the petitioners. In view of above, we allow this writ petition and direct the respondents to allot 5 Marla plot to each petitioner at the same place, where their land exists, may be by making slight changes in the overall planning of the colony except in those cases where the land falls in the alignment of any road to be carved out within the sector. For remaining land of the petitioners, compensation be assessed and before making any payment to them, the amount be adjusted towards any legal due, which the petitioners will have to pay regarding external or internal development charges, if need be. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE July 7, 2010. DKC