Satbir Singh Hooda & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash notification dated 4.1.2002 (P1), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), vide which, land of the petitioner was proposed to be acquired. Further challenge is to the notification dated

31.12.2002 (P4), issued under Section 6 of the Act. It is not in dispute that regarding the land in dispute, award had already been passed by the authorities many years ago. It appears that after the acquisition process became final, the petitioners started moving applications to get their land released. Their prayer was declined by the competent authority on 24.2.20010, by observing as under:- “The site was visited by the undersigned on 17.2.2010 along with Shri Sanjay Rai, LAO, Rohtak, Shri Sanjeev Mann, DTP, Rohtak, Shri Anoop Singh, Naib Tehsildar, o/o LAO and other officials. It was observed that two very small structures of C class have been constructed before Section 4 notification Civil Writ Petition No.15657 of 2010 2 and 4 rooms of C class category only with bricks have been constructed after the award. The structures constructed before Section 4 notification & other structures have been rented out to migrant labourers.

It was also ascertained that small plots of the size of 100 sq. yards each have been carved out by the owner in violation of Section 7(i) of Urban Areas Act. As per Release Policy dated 26.10.2007, there is no rational for releasing this land as same is not covered under the policy. There is no justification to release two C class category structures which exist prior to Section 4 notification because same are not inhabited by the owners and are being used only for the purpose of renting out to migrant labourers.” Taking note of facts of this case, we are of the opinion that in view of ratio of the 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 Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, after passing of the award, a writ petition, to quash notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, cannot be entertained. Otherwise also, there is a huge delay on the part of the petitioners to lay challenge to those notifications. Award has already been passed and the acquisition proceedings have become final. So far as petitioners’ application to release their land is concerned, we are of the Civil Writ Petition No.15657 of 2010 3 opinion that it has been found, as a matter of fact, by the Director, Urban Estate, that only two small structures of ‘C’ class were in existence before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It was further noticed that in violation to the provisions of Urban Areas Act, the petitioners had carved out a colony without getting any permission from the authorities.

It is also noticed by the officer concerned that the petitioners had constructed four small rooms (‘C’ class construction), after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and have rented the same to the migrant labourers. We are of the opinion that reasons, in not releasing the land, are perfectly justified. Even otherwise, once an award has been passed, it is not open to the petitioners to lay challenge to the acquisition proceedings after such a long delay. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge

01.09.2010 (Augustine George Masih) Judge