Judgment:
CWP No.9125 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9125 of 2013 Date of decision:30.04.2013 Jagdish Nagar & others .....Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. G.S.Sandhawalia J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notifications issued under Section 4 & 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the 'Act') dated 27.09.2007 and the award dated 10.04.2008 on account of the fact that the acquisition was in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
2. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that Tara Chand, father of petitioners No.1 & 2 and husband of petitioner No.3 purchased land measuring 140 square-yards vide sale deed dated 05.05.2006 and 105 square-yards vide sale deed dated 18.09.2006 along with another plot of 35 square-yards vide sale deed dated 18.09.2006 forming part of khasra No.17592/7933 situated in revenue estate of village Rohtak. Tara Chand died on 21.01.2011 leaving the petitioners as his legal heirs. The notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on 27.09.2007 showing the intention to acquire the land and thereafter, declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on the same date invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act. Neither notice under Section 9 was served upon Tara Chand not compensation was paid to him thereunder and possession of the land had been taken and the petitioners came to knot of the acquisition of the plot only on 01.06.2011 when the official CWP No.9125 o”
2. respondents came to take the possession forcibly. The petitioners made a representation on 02.06.2011 alleging that no notice had been served under Section 9 and 12(2) of the Act but no action had been taken on the said representation. Accordingly, the acquisition has been challenged on the ground that 80% of the estimated compensation had not been paid as provided under Section 17(3-A) of the Act.
3. From the perusal of the record of the case, it transpires that the notification had been issued for the purpose of storm water disposal at Rahar Johar, Rohtak, Tehsil & District Rohtak which is dated 26.07.2007 whereas the writ petition has been filed after expiry of more than five and a half years thereafter. In pursuance of the notification, the award had also been passed for 10 bighas 7 biswas to the tune of `14121540/- on 10.04.2008. As noticed above, the acquisition is for the purposes of storm water disposal and the petitioner is owner of only 3 plots measuring 140 square-yards, 105 square-yards and 35 square-yards. Tara Chand, who was the owner, had never, during his lifetime, challenged the said acquisition and the representation was also filed on 02.06.2011. In the representation, an allegation had been made that a kotha has been raised in the said plot and therefore, the land should be released from the said acquisition. A perusal of the photograph of said construction of one room shows that it is not inhabited unit and neither it is the case of the petitioners that they are residing in the said constructed portion so as to get the benefit of exemption. Perusal of the legal notice sent by the petitioners also shows that even Tara Chand had not got the land mutated in his name though he had purchased the land in the year 2006, i.e., prior to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.
4. Counsel for the petitioners tried to impress upon us that the adjoining land had been released and the purpose of the storm water disposal had been CWP No.9125 o”
3. frustrated. Reliance was placed upon Radhy Shyam Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (5) SCC 553.
5. From the perusal of the notifications, it emerges that the total land measuring 10 bighas 7 biswas was sought to be acquired under the emergency provisions and the award had also been announced for the said area and, thus, there was no release as urged by learned counsel for the petitioners. The challenge to the acquisition at this belated stage after a period of expiry of more than 5 years from the date of passing of the award would not be maintainable as per doctrine of delay and laches. The representation dated 02.06.2011 also nowhere lays any grievance relating to non-payment of compensation to the petitioners. It is clear from legal notice dated 18.07.2011 that the petitioners had been sending notices to the State for entering the mutation and in the absence of mutation in the revenue record in favour of the petitioners, there cannot be any justifiable grievance relating to non-payment of compensation to them. Reliance of the counsel for the petitioners on the judgment in Radhy Shyam (supra) would, thus, not support his case being different on factual matrix involved herein and in such a situation, petitioners cannot urge that non-compliance of Section 17(3A) of the Act would render the acquisition proceedings invalid or void ab initio.
6. However, leaving the remedy open to the petitioners to agitate for their right of compensation for the acquisition of their land, in appropriate proceedings, we do not find any infirmity in the acquisition proceedings undertaken by the State and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed in limine. (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 30 04.2013 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) sailesh JUDGE