Judgment:
CWP No.1708 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1708 of 2013 Date of decision:
28. 01.2013 Kanwar Singh and another -----Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ----Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA Present:- Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.
1. Challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the notifications dated 2.6.2009 and 31.5.2010 under Sections 4 and 6, Annexures P.2 and P.5 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “the Act”.), whereby land of the petitioners alongwith others has been acquired. The petitioners pray for release of their land as some land belonging to the colonizers/builders in the said area has been spared. A further prayer has been made for staying the dispossession of the petitioners from the land in dispute.
2. The facts in brief, relevant for decision of the controversy involved in the case, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioners were owners of land comprised in Khewat No.130, Khata No.183, Hadbast No.80, Khasra No.19/1 min measuring 3 kanals 6 marlas situated within the revenue limits at Village Berampur, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon. The land was a plot purchased for residential purposes and thereafter the boundary wall had been constructed around the same. On 2.6.2009, the respondents issued notification Annexure P.2 under Section 4 of the Act showing the intention to acquire the land of the CWP No.1708 o”
2. petitioners and others for the development of residential Sectors 58 to 63 and commercial Sectors 65 to 67 Gurgaon. The petitioners filed objections, Annexure P.3 on 30.6.2009 under Section 5-A of the Act, alleging that their land was for residential purposes and the area was thickly populated. They further alleged that the land/plots owned by colonizers/builders from the same very khasra numbers had not been acquired. Thereafter, without considering the objections submitted by the petitioners, on 31.5.2010, the respondents issued notification Annexure P.5 under Section 6 of the Act. On 4.1.2012, the petitioners also filed a representation, Annexure P.6 with a prayer for releasing their land but no action was taken. Hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that land of the petitioners was sandwiched between other land on the road in such a manner that the same could not be utilised by the State for the public purpose for which it had been acquired under the Act. Reference was made to Annexure P.4 – site plan in this regard. Release of land had also been sought on the ground that land owned by colonizers/builders had not been acquired.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing the record, we do not find any merit in the contention.
5. The petitioners had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act whereupon the Land Acquisition Collector had made his comments for acquisition of the land and thereafter the same had been rejected and notification under Section 6 was issued on 31.5.2010. It clearly falls within the domain of the State to decide whether the land which is being acquired for public purpose would suit the said public purpose. It is only when action of the State is actuated by malafides that the same would be amenable to CWP No.1708 o”
3. judicial review. A Division bench of this Court in Sampuran Singh and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, 2007(1) PLR 34.had held as under:-
“11. We are in full agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents. The State can always exercise its absolute power to acquire land, provided a public purpose exists and it is not necessary that it should succumb to the wishes or willingness of the owner or person interested in the land. The only exception can be when mala fide is shown and then the Courts are bound to protect the individuals from being the victims of such arbitrariness.”
6. In the present case, no material has been shown to substantiate the averments made in the writ petition or to demonstrate malafide on the part of the State in acquiring the land in dispute. No illegality or infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned notifications.
7. Finding no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge January 28, 2013 (Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia) 'gs' Judge