Judgment:
N.K. Agrawal, J.
1. There are eight writ petitions involving common questions of facts and law.
2. The State Government of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, the Act) on May 12, 1995. Land measuring 458.65 acres was intended to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial area at Bahadurgarh. The land was situated in the Revenue Estate of villages Bahadurgarh and Parnala in District Rohtak. State of Haryana. The aforesaid notification was followed by a notification dated May 10, 1996 issued under Section 6 of the Act.
3. The acquisition of land has been challenged by the petitioners in these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution with the plea that they had purchased plots of land prior to the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act and they also raised construction. The entire area consisting of residential colonies, named Shastri Nagar, Arya Nagar and Sainipura is stated to be thickly populated. Since the owners of land have already built their houses and are residing therein, the acquisition of the land and the houses is said to be unwarranted inasmuch as the land is being acquired for the development of residential and commercial area only. It is also stated that a notification under Section 4 of the Act was earlier issued in the year 1980, but the land was, at that time, released from acquisition after objections were filed under Section 5A of the Act. The second notification issued again under Section 4 of the Act is said to be wholly unjustified. It is also pleaded that the petitioner were not given any opportunity of hearing by the Land Acquisition Collector after they had filed their objections. It is also alleged that many vacant plots of big and small sizes and many constructions have been left out from acquisition. It only shows how the authorities have proceeded by pick and choose method and in a discriminatory manner. Major part of the Colonies is said to have been released. The land is primarily being acquired by the State Government for widening the Delhi-Rohtak Highway and Bahadurgarh-Najafgarh road. The land in question is situated at the Haryana Delhi border along the Delhi-Rohtak highway on one side and the Bahadurgarh-Najafgarh road on the other side. A site plan has been annexed with the writ petition.
4. Shri M.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that the construction raised by the petitioner do not actually fall inside the Development Plan of the roads and should, therefore, be released from acquisition. It is also pointed out that the houses have been built after obtaining approval from the Municipal Committee. Electricity and water charges as well as House-tax are being paid by the owners. Shri Sharma has argued that many vacant plots of land as well as houses have been left out from acquisition whereas the land and the houses of the petitioners have been acquired resulting in discrimination.
5. In writ petition, Satya Parkash and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (No. 16399 of 1996) there are 45 petitioners who have challenged the acquisition. 18 petitioners, namely, Nos.1 to 10, 12 to 17, 23 and 24, have constructed houses along with Najafgarh road prior to the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. A perusal of the site plan shows that the lands and houses of these petitioners are scattered over a wide area.
6. The respondents have, in their written statement, explained that the persons, whose land has been left out from acquisition, have not been impleaded by the petitioners as parties to the present writ petitions and, therefore, the release of their land cannot be considered in their absence. Moreover, their lands and constructions were left out after noticing that it would not adversely affect the development of the area. The land is being acquired for widening the road and also for the proposed Bye-Pass road under the Development Plan relating to the Rohtak road and the Bahadurgarh-Najafgarh road. Land which falls within the Development Plan is being acquired. Thus, the land and houses, which are outside the Development Plan, have been left out from acquisition. It does not make out a case of discrimination.
7. Shri Parmod Goyal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondents, has argued that objections filed under Section 5A of the Act were duly considered by the Land Acquisition Collector and opportunity of hearing was given to the landowners. Statements of the landowners were also recorded. No objections were filed by petitioner Nos.2, 7 to 10, 12, 15 to 17, 21, 23, 31 to 33, 38, 40 and 41 (in C.W.P. No.16399 of 1996). After going through the objections filed by others, survey of the land was conducted. A report was thereafter submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector to the State Government. The State Government considered the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector but found it necessary to acquire the land for purpose of development of residential and commercial area. Total land measuring 458.65 acres has been acquired for the development of residential and commercial area by Haryana Urban Development Authority at Bahadurgarh. It is further explained that 'A' Class construction has been found in the cases of petitioner No. 6 Dil Bahadur S/o Ram Bahadur, petitioner No. 37 Bhup Singh s/o Piare Lal and petitioner No. 44 Jagbir Singh s/o Ishwar Singh. Thus 'A' Class construction has been raised by the aforesaid three persons only. 'B' Class construction has been raised by 19 persons and 'C Class construction has been raised by 4 persons. Thus, out of 45 petitioners (in C.W.P. No.16399 of 1996), 26 persons have raised their construction and the remaining 19 persons own vacant plots of land.
8. In the replication filed by the petitioners, this factual position has not been controverted. It is, thus, obvious that out of 45 petitioners (in C.W.P. No.16399 of 1996), 3 petitioners have raised 'A' Class construction. It is also noticed that the petitioners, who had filed objections under Section 5A, were afforded opportunity of hearing by the Land Acquisition Collector. Their statements were also recorded. The plea taken by the petitioners that they were not heard by the Land Acquisition Collector regarding their objections to the acquisition is found to be without basis. It is also found that certain land as well as constructions have been left out by the State Government after noticing that their exclusion would not adversely affect the Development Plan of the area.
9. In writ petition Asha Rani v. State of Haryana and Ors., (No.3677 of 1998), acquisition of land measuring 120 sq. yards is under challenge. In paragraphs 1 and 2 of the writ petition, it has been averred that one room was constructed on the land prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act.
10. In writ petition Raghbir Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (No. 4752 of 1998), the petitioners have challenged the acquisition of their land on the ground that they are running an industrial unit and they manufacture potteries. The total area of land measuring 16 Biswas is situated along the Bahadur-garh-Najafgarh road. It has been admitted by the petitioners that the land used for the purposes of the factory has been left out from acquisition but the labourers' quarters situated across the road are being acquired. It is, thus, noticed that the State Government is not acquiring the land which is being actually used by the petitioners for running their unit manufacturing potteries. Their land across the road is being acquired.
11. In writ petition Mewa Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (No. 15511 of 1998), the land under acquisition measuring 8 biswas has been used to construct two rooms, kitchen, latrine, bath room and a shop.
12. In writ petition Saini Model School, Sainipura, Bahadurgarh v. State of Haryana and Ors., (No. 15228 of 1997), the State Government has left out the School building from acquisition. The open land is, however, sought to be acquired. It is explained by the respondents that land measuring 9 Biswas has been left out from acquisition and a boundary wall existed on that land. Decision to leave the School building from acquisition was taken after hearing the landowner. Statement of the landowner was also recorded and spot inspection was made. It is, thus, apparent that the School building as well as the open area within the boundary wall has been left out.
13. In writ petition Kamal Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (No. 15549 of 1997), the landowners have opposed the acquisition of land measuring 8 Biswas. They have explained that a Samadh/Yadgaar (consisting of one room) has been constructed in the name of their grand-mother. In reply, the respondents have pleaded that though the Land Acquisition Collector had recommended the exclusion of this land from acquisition, the State Government, on a consideration of the matter, did not agree with the same as it was found to be not possible to make any adjustment by way of exclusion within the Development Plan of the area.
14. In writ petition Umed Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., (No. 3524 of 1998), the petitioner owns 2 rooms, kitchen and bath room on his land. In reply, the respondents have pointed that the construction raised by the petitioner is a 'B' Class construction on land measuring 30 sq. yards. The Land Acquisition Collector gave an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also recorded his statement. Spot inspection was thereafter made. The Land Acquisition Collector submitted a report to the State Government recommending the exclusion of this land from acquisition, but the State Government, on consideration of the matter, did not find it appropriate to exclude the land of the petitioner within the Development Plan.
15. In writ petition Ishwar Dass and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., (No.403 of 1998), acquisition of the land has been challenged by the petitioners with the plea that they are running a saw mill on the land. It is explained that there is one shed on the land measuring 66' x 20', a store, a room, kitchen and verandah. The constructions exist on the land measuring 511 sq. yds. out of the total land measuring 1221 sq. yds. Though the Land Acquisition Collector recommended the release of the covered area, the State Government did not agree. The petitioners have pleased that the land owned by M/s Jain Ceramics has been left out from acquisition though a similar industry is being run by M/s Jain Ceramics also. It amounted to discrimination. In reply, the respondents have explained that the built up area was a 'B' class construction and the State Government, after considering the location of the land within the Development Plan, did not find it appropriate to release the land from acquisition. Part of the land was coming under the Bahadurgarh-Najafgarh road and part of it under the service road. It is further pleaded by the respondents that the petitioners were engaged in grinding wood saw ('Burada'). It created dust and pollution and affected the environment of the residential area.
16. On a consideration of the controversy emerging from the facts of these writ petitions, it is noticed that the charge of discrimination is not made out. The layout plan of the area does not permit the exclusion of the land of the petitioners. The plea that some of the landowners have raised some constructions would not make them entitled to claim exemption from acquisition of their area. However, three of the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 16399 of 1996, namely, petitioner No. 6 Dil Bahadur s/o Ran Bahadur, petitioner No. 37 Bhup Singh s/o Piare Lal and petitioner No. 44, Jagbir Singh s/o Ishwar Singh, may if they so desire, make applications before the competent authority seeking release of their houses on the ground that those were 'A' Class constructions. We trust that the competent authority shall make a fair and reasonable view and decide their applications, if filed expeditiously.
17. It is undisputed that the Land Acquisition Collector gave opportunity of hearing to the landowners and recorded their statements. Recommendations to exclude the land was made in a few cases, but the State Government did not find it possible to accept the recommendation because the exclusion was likely to affect the development of the area in an adverse manner. The widening of the Delhi-Rohtak road and Bahadurgarh-Najafgarh road is part of the Development Plan of the area. The land occupied by the School building has already been exempted.
In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.