Satish Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

M.M. Kumar, J.

This judgment shall dispose of a bunch of petitions* filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent State of Haryana in pursuance to notifications dated 21.7.2006 and 20.7.2007, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, `the Act') respectively, for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land for residential/commercial Sector 6-7 part at Rewari, in the area of village Gokalgarh H.B. No. 119 and village Rewari H.B. No. 125, Tehsil and District Rewari.

2. Since almost identical facts and grounds are taken in these petitions, therefore, the same are being referred from CWP No. 15556 of 2007. The petitioners are owner of land measuring 11/10 marla of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari. They have claimed that the land in question was mutated in their names on 24.10.2000 (P-1). They have constructed two rooms, kitchen, bathroom with boundary wall with `A' Class construction, as is evident from site plans (P-2 to P-4). The petitioners are residing in the said house with their respective families. It has also been stated that they deposited the development charges of Rs. 24,000/- and Rs. 62,760/- with the Municipal Committee, Rewari, on 30.8.2006 and 20.8.2006 (P-5 and P-6). Besides this, the electricity and water connections are also installed in the houses (P-7 and P-8). The petitioners have also placed on record a site plan showing the acquired land in Green colour; the land which has been left over at the time of issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act is shown in Yellow colour; and the land belonging to the petitioners has been shown in Red colour. It is alleged that despite filing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act, their land has been acquired in a discriminatory manner. In fact, their land with constructions is located within the vicinity of abadi of constructed shopping complexes/shops/residential houses of Anand Nagar, Ward No. 4, Rewari. All around the houses of the petitioners, there exists `A' Class puccka constructions. It has been further asserted that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for acquiring land of villages Gokalgarh and Rewari, measuring 1.69 acres and 315.15 acres respectively. However, declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been made only in respect of 1.69 acres and 33.61 acres of villages Gokalgarh and Rewari respectively. In this manner, 290 acres of land has been left out from acquisition.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the land of only selected influential persons has been released. In this regard the example of one Suncity Developer has been cited. The land belonging to Suncity Developer has been shown in Gemni colour in the site plan. In para 13, the petitioners have cited the examples of a number of persons whose land has been released. For example, the land belonging to Shri Kishan Lal Saini (900 Sq. Yards); Shri Ramji Lal Saini (1400 Sq. Yards); Shri Jai Narayan Saini (1360 Sq. Yards); Shri Madan Lal (650 Sq. Yards); and Shri Ram Sarup (1000 Sq. Yards), has been released vide letter dated 5.9.2007 (P-16). Referring to the policy dated 26.6.1991, it has been submitted that the area having construction could not have been acquired. However, in the present case, despite undertaking the survey, even the constructed areas have been acquired.

4. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 it has been stated that various provisions of the Act have been religiously complied with. It has been pointed out that notification under Section 4 was published in the Haryana Government Gazette on the same day. The entry of the notification was also made in the Patwari Halqa Roznamcha Wakayati vide Rapat No. 965, dated 24.7.2006. The substance of the notification was also published in two daily news papers, namely, `The Indian Express' (English), dated 15.8.2006 and `Hari Bhoomi' (Hindi), dated 27.7.2006. The substance of the notification was also pasted on the notice board of Halqua Patwar Khana and Tehsil Office. Munadi was also done through the village Chowkidar by beating of drum in the village and in the vicinity of the land to be acquired. On 20.7.2007, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made as per the demarcation plan after considering the report of the Collector and the Joint Site Inspection Committee. The substance of the declaration was also published in two daily news papers, namely, `Amar Uzala' (Hindi) and `Indian Express' (English) on 25.7.2007 respectively. The entry of the declaration was made in the Roznamcha Wakayati Halqa vide Rapat No. 976, dated 24.7.2007. It has also been pointed out that adequate opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioners while considering the objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Notices were issued by the Collector. In pursuance of which, petitioner No. 1 Shri Satish Kumar appeared before the Collector for himself as well as on behalf of petitioner No. 3. Similarly, Shri Jagdish brother of petitioner No. 2 appeared before the Collector. According to the respondents the entire land in dispute was totally vacant at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners have not been subjected to any discrimination nor any pick and choose policy has been adopted against them. According to them the process of acquisition is fair, constant, constitutional, un-arbitrary, unambiguous, based on uniform approach and comply with the principles of natural justice.

5. Mr. M.L. Sharma, Mr. P.R. Yadav, Mr. R.A. Sheoran and Mr. Sanjay Mittal, learned counsel representing various petitioners in different petitions have made the following submissions :

1. The notification under Section 4 was issued for development of residential and commercial area in respect of Sector 6-7 at Rewari. The total area at the time of announcement of award was less than 35 acres. According to the learned counsel most of the area i.e. over 281.5 acres has been found to be thickly constructed which is evident from the perusal of the site plan. Therefore, once the substantial area has been released, it is not possible to have any planned development for residential and commercial area for the purposes of developing Sector 6-7. A reference has been invited to the site plan to point out that the Red portion is the scattered area, which would not be feasible for development of any kind. The scattered area near the abadi owned by the petitioners must be released, as has been done in respect of a larger number of other plots. In support of their submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Hari Ram v. State of Haryana, 2010(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 181 : 2010(2) R.A.J. 1 : (2010)3 SCC 621 and Prahlad Singh v. Union of India, 2011(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 863 : 2011(3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 71 : (2011)5 SCC 386. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Reshma Footwears (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, (CWP No. 2308 of 2004, decided on 21.6.2010).

2. The petitioners have also invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in para 9 of CWP No. 15556 of 2007 and reply of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to the corresponding para. It has been argued that huge area belonging to Suncity Real Estate Developer has been released whereas the land belonging to the petitioners, which is scattered in pieces, has been acquired. The argument seems to be that there is hostile discrimination, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In that regard reliance has again been placed on the observations made in Hari Ram's case (supra).

3. It has also been pointed out that the area belonging to the petitioners has been constructed and adequate amount towards development charges has already been paid much before issuance of notification under Section 4. The site plans of the structures have been sanctioned by the Municipal Council.

6. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned State counsel has argued that the whole constructed area measuring 283.23 acres was released after Section 4 notification out of 316.84 acres. There is no area released after notification issued under Section 6. According to the learned counsel the award was announced on 17.7.2009. In that regard he has placed reliance on the noting sheet dated 13.7.2007, made by the Director, Urban Estate, Haryana. Mr. Sehgal has emphasised that an area measuring 35.30 acres was sought to be acquired and award was duly announced.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and are of the view that there is merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s). It has come on record that at the time when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, the total area of land in both the villages, namely, Gokalgarh and Rewari, was 1.69 acres and 315.15 respectively. However, at the time of announcement of awards, substantial area has been released primarily on the ground that 281.5 acres was thickly constructed. The basic public purpose of acquisition was to have planned development and utilisation of land for residential and commercial area for Sector 6-7 Part at Rewari. Even the respondents have not been able to successfully controvert the aforesaid factual position. In the recommendation submitted by the Joint Inspection Committee (Annexure R-1 with CWP No. 17183 of 2007), the aforesaid view find supported and the same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference :

"316.84 acres of land falling in the revenue estate of village Gokalgarh and village Rewari Tehsil and District Rewari was notified under Section 4 of LA Act on 21.7.2006 for development of the land for residential sector 6 and 7 Part, Rewari. Notification was published in the Indian Express English and Hari Bhumi (Hindi) on 15.8.2006 and 27.7.2006 respectively. Mustari Mundadi in the locality was done and its entry was made in rapat Roznamchas of respective village Patwaries.

In statutory compliance of Section 5-A of Land Acquisition act, LAC, Gurgaon gave hearing to all the persons who raised objections against acquisition of their land, 1546 objections were received by LAC Gurgaon. JIC under the chairmanship of Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon alongwith SE, HUDA, STP, Gurgaon, STP, HUDA, DTP, Rewari, Executive Engineer, HUDA, Rewari and Estate Officer, HUDA, Rewari visited the area proposed to be acquired on 5.7.2007. 90% of the area has been found to be thickly constructed, which is mainly an old village Abadi area comprising of Durga Macthu Vihar, Arjun Nagar, Sadhusha Nagar, Dhani Kumharan, Shiv Nagar etc. Recommendations regarding excluding these constructions from acquisition have also earlier been sent to the Govt. by the JIC, a copy of the same is placed below for your ready reference. Thickly land area marked in black hatching since has already been recommended to be excluding from acquisition, the present JIC also concur with the same and in addition to above, recommends some thickly constructed areas adjoining to old abadi as shown in copy of shajra plan in yellow colour. Since HUDA will not be able to plan, develop and utilize these areas potentially, only the vacant land which can be easily integrated with the already acquired land of this sector as shown in blue hatching is recommended to be notified under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act after seeking approval of the Govt." (emphasis added)

8. A perusal of the aforesaid recommendation would show that a Committee comprised of senior officers visited the area on 5.7.2007 and found that 90% of the area was thickly constructed, which is mainly an old village abadi. It also makes a reference to the earlier recommendations made by the Joint Inspection Committee. It also explains that only a part of the area shown in Blue colour may be included in the notification to be issued under Section 6 of the Act. Once 90% area has been recommended for exclusion from acquisition, we are doubtful if there could be any planned development. A casual look on the site plan (Annexure P-6 attached with CWP No. 15741 of 2007) would show that the acquisition has been completed only in respect of Pink area which is scattered and even the recommendation made by the Committee seems to have been ignored. The public purpose of acquiring the land seems to have been defeated. Moreover, there is hostile discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution. A large tract of land has been released from acquisition whereas the land/construction belonging to the petitioners is sought to be acquired. Such an action would smacks of arbitrariness and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

9. In Hari Ram's case (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has laid down that if the area adjoining the land of a landowner has been excluded from acquisition without extending the same benefit to the objectors then the action of the State was not sustained in the facts and circumstances of that case. The facts in the present petitions are akin to the facts in Hari Ram's case (supra) and if we follow the same view then the writ petitions merit acceptance. We further find that either the area belonging to the petitioners stand constructed and adequate amount towards development charges has already been paid to the Municipal Council. Their site plans have been sanctioned before Section 4 notification.

10. The argument of Mr. Sehgal that the area belonging to Suncity Real Estate Developer has got nothing to do with the impugned notifications, would not cut any ice once he concedes that out of 316.84 acres, 283.23 acres was released from acquisition. It is conceded fact that only an area of 35.30 acres was included in the award. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to reject the aforesaid submission.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, these petitions succeed. The acquisition proceedings initiated by issuing notifications dated 21.7.2006 and 20.7.2007, under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act as well as the awards subsequently passed, are hereby set aside. However, we leave the parties to bear their own cost.

12. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected petitions.

Petition dismissed.