Virender Yadav & Ors. v. Hon’ble Mr

Order

- “Total land involved in this writ petition is 1 bigha 7 biswas, out of which a total area of 15 biswas is required for construction of a dividing 30 meter wide road, service road and master sewer line at Gurgaon, as per the site plan. However, the remaining land of 12 biswas, as is reflected in the affidavit of the HUDA, has also been sought to be acquired only for making residential plots, which appears to be contrary to the public purpose and does not fall within its domain, wherefore the land has been acquired, i.e., for development and utilization of land for sectors 52 and 57 dividing 30 meter wide road, serviced and master sewer line at Gurgaon.

On being confronted with this query, learned counsel for the HUDA submits that this is within the domain of the State Government and if a proper representation is made by the petitioners, the same may be considered under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, and he is not in a position to make any definite statement on the basis of instructions before the Court. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they would make a representation, if the competent authority is directed to consider it on merit as prima Civil Writ Petition No.18816 of 2010 3 facie; they appear to be entitled to get the remaining land of 12 biswas. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with directions to the authority concerned to consider the representation of the petitioners on merits to be made within a period of four weeks from receipt of a copy of this order. As it is not clear from the affidavit as to which part of the land is required for the public purpose, it is expected of the department to make a demarcation and furnish detailed information to the parties.” Before this Court, at that time, it was contention of the petitioners that total remaining land falling in khasra No.1492 is 1 bigha 7 biswas. The state authorities need only 15 biswas of land to construct a road etc. It was projected before the Court that rest of the land need not be acquired. Taking note of the same, writ petition was disposed of by issuing directions to the authorities to consider representation of the petitioners and pass an appropriate order. In response to order passed by this Court, the competent authority passed order on 11.8.2008. Relevant portion of the order passed reads thus:- “Therefore, a conclusion can be reasonable drawn that any land which is not required for the above mentioned purposes is beyond the scope of the notification. The Hon’ble High Court has also made similar observation in its order dated 11.12.07. As per the demarcation done by District Town Planner, Gurgaon, only 1934 square yards of land belonging to the petitioner comes in the 30 metre wide Sector Road and 10 meter wide service road. Therefore, this 1934 square yards Civil Writ Petition No.18816 of 2010 4 has to be acquired, including the structures if any which are located in the same. As far as the balance 5326 square yards of land belonging to the petitioner is concerned, since the same is not required for the purpose for which Section 4 notification was issued, the same deserves to be released in favour of the petitioner, subject to the terms and conditions relating to payment of EDC etc. A copy of the site plan received from District Town Planner, Gurgaon is also attached with the order for reference. Therefore, the representation filed by the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 11.12.07 of Hon’ble high Court is disposed of accordingly. Director Urban Estates is directed to put up the case on file to obtain the approval of the competent authority.” Perusal of the order, mentioned above, indicates that when ordering release of 5326 square yard of area in favour of the petitioners, 1 bigha 1 biswas of land out of khasra No.1492, acquisition of which had become final in the year 2002 by mistake, was also taken into consideration. When that mistake was detected then a note was issued on 21.10.2008, which reads thus:- “The land involved in the writ petition is 1 b – 7B (4083- 75 sq.yard) whereas the order at CP 71-74 has been passed for 1934 + 5326 = 7260 sq.yds. The area measuring 1 B – 1 B (3176.25 sq.yds.) is area already acquired conclusively and cannot be considered for release. If approved, we may release only 4083-75-1934 =

2149.75 sq.yds. land of the petitioners, for which given approval of the Hon’ble C.M. may kindly be obtained.” Civil Writ Petition No.18816 of 2010 5 Consequent thereto, the following order was passed by the competent authority on 3.11.2008, which ultimately led to the passing of order Annexure P12:- “This matter was discussed today. In the CWP No.11658 of 2007 titled as Virender Yadav & ors. Vs. State of Haryana, the land involved in this writ petition 1 bigha 7 biswa (4083.75 sq.yds.). Thus the claim of the releasing the land can not go beyond 1 bigha 7 biswa. The Tatima for khasra no.1492 was not determined at the time of initial acquired and 1 bigha 1 biswa land out of this khasra No. was acquired and 1 bigha 7 biswas of this khasra No. was released. Now on account of the construction of the road an area measuring 1934 sq.yds falls under road and green belt. The area proposed to be considered for released is to be restricted only upto 1 bigha 7 biswa taking into consideration the position marked ‘x’ on CP-74. Thus an area measuring

4083.75 sq.yds. i.e. 1 bigha 7 biswa will be released instead of 5326 sq.yds. As is mentioned in the orders in CP 71-75. The revised approval of the Hon’ble C.M. may kindly be obtained in view of the position explained above.” Counsel for the petitioners has failed to show us any factual error in the order passed. Vide notification issued in the year 2007, only 1 bigha 7 biswas of land of the petitioners was ordered to be acquired. The total area of that land comes only to 4083.75 square yards. Rest of the area was not subject matter of the litigation, which was agitated and raised by filing a civil writ petition in this Court in the year 2007. If that is so, area Civil Writ Petition No.18816 of 2010 6 can be released only out of the area which was subject matter of dispute in notification under Section 6 of the Act issued in the year 2007. We are of the opinion that only a factual mistake has been rectified and possibly, the petitioners cannot raise any objection to the same. Once the petitioners have not raised any objection to the acquisition in the year 2001, which has become final. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge

14.10.2010 (Gurdev Singh) Judge