Jai Naryana and Others Vs. - Court Judgment

CWP No.24014 o”

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.24014 of 2011 Date of decision: March 13, 2013 Jai Naryana and others Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA Present: Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Rishi Tandon, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for HUDA. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, “the Act”.) dated 2.6.2009 and 31.5.2010, Annexures P.2 and P.3 respectively, whereby land of the petitioners has been acquired by the State Government. The petitioners also pray for release of their land as per letter/policy dated 29.7.2011.

2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved, as narrated in the petition, may be noticed. The petitioners CWP No.24014 o”

2. were owners of land measuring 9 kanals 3 marlas situated in Village Maidawas, Hadbast No.85, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. On June 2, 2009, the State of Haryana issued notification under Section 4 of the Act, Annexure P.2 for acquiring amongst others the land of the petitioners for the public purpose of development and utilization of land for residential Sectors 58 to 63 and residential commercial Sectors 65 to 67 at Gurgaon. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 31.5.2010, Annexure P.3. According to the petitioners, mandatory provisions of section 4(1) of the Act regarding publication of the notification were not complied with by the respondents. It has also been averred in the petition that some of the land owners approached this Court and this Court referred their case to the High Powered Committee and also granted interim order regarding stay of dispossession. The petitioners are, therefore, before this Court through the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though in the short affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the land in dispute was required for external development work like water, supply, sewerage, drainage, electric substation, hospitals, colleges etc. but the State has released about 95% out of the total acquired land, and, therefore, it would not be feasible to have the purpose for which it was being acquired and in such circumstances, the land of the petitioners also deserves to be exempted.

4. In the reply in the form of affidavit filed by the Land CWP No.24014 o”

3. Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana Gurgaon, it has been stated that the High Powered Committee after considering the matter observed that for planned development, provision of External Development work like water supply, sewerage, drainage, electric substation, hospitals, colleges etc. was the responsibility of the State on account of recovery of proportionate cost of external development charges (EDC). Since the EDC had been recovered for the area where licences had been granted on the basis of proportionate per acre cost estimated by HUDA, the High Powered Committee had recommended for acquisition of land for providing EDC infrastructure only. Moreover, it was for the State to decide whether the land was suitable for the purpose for which it had been acquired.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is not disputed that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2.6.2009 followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act on 31.5.2010 for the public purpose of development of residential Sectors 58 to 63 and residential commercial Sectors 65 to 67, Gurgaon. As per the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the matter was considered by the High Powered Committee constituted by the Government (HPC). The HPC not only considered the representations submitted for release of land in the above referred Sectors but also examined the impact of cases in which the acquisition proceedings were challenged in the High Court and dispossession stayed and where the licences had been granted/issued CWP No.24014 o”

4. by the Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. After considering the recommendations of the HPC, the Government decided to announce the award only for the area earmarked for the approved external infrastructure facilities.

7. 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 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.”

8. 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.

9. In view of the above, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge March 13, 2013 (Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia) 'gs' Judge