IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.15150 of 2010
Date of decision: 05.05.2011
Smt.Neelima Batra and others
…..Petitioners
versus
The State of Haryana and others
……Respondents
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr.Raghvinder Singh, Advocate for
Mr.R.D.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr.J.S.Toor, Addl.A.G. Haryana
Mr.Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate for HUDA
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
This writ petition has been filed by a widow and her minor
children. It is case of the petitioners that their predecessor in interest Sunil
Batra purchased ten biswa of land vide sale deed No.2320 dated 18.12.1989 and thereafter with the hard earned money, he had constructed a house over that plot. Sunil Batra died on 1.6.2005 in a road accident, leaving behind
the petitioners as his legal heirs. It is their further case that the plot owned
by the petitioners is situated in a planned developed colony and many others
had also constructed houses much before the time when process to acquire
that land was initiated.
In this writ petition, it is prayer of the petitioners that a
notification dated 26.9.2007 (P7), issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), proposing to acquire 106.64 acres
CWP No.15150 of 2010
of land in village Nangal Sodia along with huge chunk of land for a public
purpose, namely, ‘for the development and utilization of land for residential
area for Sector 2, Part 3, 4 & 5 Pinjore’ be quashed. Further prayer is to
quash a declaration, issued on 25.9.2008 under Section 6 of the Act (P11),
finally deciding to acquire the land in question, including land of the
petitioners.
It is not in dispute that as per stipulation made in the
notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, the petitioners filed
objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Paragraph Nos.2 to 7 of the
objections read thus:-
“2. That the objectors are owners and in possession of the
house constructed over the land measuring 10 biswas
comprised in khewat / khatauni No.11/12, Khasra
No.126/66(12-7) to the extent of 10/247 the share = 10
biswas, situated at village Naggal Sodhian, tehsil Kalka,
district Panchkula.
3. That Shri Sunil Kumar Batra son of Shri Harbhagwan
Batra purchased the land measuring 10 biswas from his
hard earned money from its previous owner vide sale
deed No.63 dated 18.12.1989 for a valuable sale
considerations. Shri Sunil Kumar Batra constructed the
house over the said plot by spending huge amount over
it.
4. That Shri Sunil Kumar expired on 1.6.2005 in a road
accident and after his death, the objectors inherited the
house in question as his natural heirs.
2
CWP No.15150 of 2010
5. That upon the land in question the objectors has
constructed his residential house and whole of the
holdings of the objectors are being used as residential
house, therefore, the very nature of the land becomes as
constructed house and, therefore, could not be acquired
as such.
6. That the family of the objectors is residing in the house
in question and the very acquisition of this land would
result into the wanderless the whole of the family.
7. That the house of the objectors is situated in the land in
dispute. Ration Card has also been issued to the
objectors by the authority concerned on this address.”
The petitioners have specifically stated that 10 biswa of land
was purchased on 18.12.1989. A copy of the sale deed has also been put on
record as Annexure P1. (In the written statement, sale deed has not been
disputed). In the objections, it is further stated that the petitioners have
constructed their house in the land in dispute and are residing therein.
Despite those objections, land of the petitioners was ordered to be acquired,
whereas relief was given to many other land owners, by releasing their land
with construction. Under the circumstances, the petitioners came to this
Court by filing this writ petition. Upon notice, reply has been filed.
Paragraph No.3 (preliminary objections) of the reply, filed at the instance of
respondent Nos.1 and 2, reads thus:-
“3. That the petitioners filed objection u/s 5A of the Land
Acquisition Act within prescribed period of limitation, same
were duly heard on 27.5.2008 to 29.5.2008. After providing
proper opportunity of hearing the Land Acquisition Collector
3
CWP No.15150 of 2010
made a report on individual objections and sent to Govt. for
final decision. After receiving the report from the Govt. the
declaration u/s 6 was issued. In view of releasing point the
land/ construction which could be adjusted in the plan has
been left out from the acquisition after considering the
objections u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, the land/
construction which could not be adjusted in the plan has been
acquired. The land/ construction measuring 31.65 acres of
land was released after considering the objections u/s 5A of
the Land Acquisition Act and the land measuring 105.81 acres
was not included in the notification u/s 6 which has already
been acquired for Kaushalya Dam. The petitioners filed
objections u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition, but the said house of
the petitioners was under construction at the time of issuance
of notification u/s 4 the neither the petitioners nor the
predecessors of the petitioners were owner as per revenue
record maintained by this office, even though the Land
Acquisition Collector recommended to release being developed
as housing society, but the recommendation of the Land
Acquisition Collector is not binding upon the Govt.”
In this paragraph, it is stated that the petitioners’ house was
under construction, whereas in reply on merits, in paragraph Nos.3, 8 and
10, it was virtually admitted that house was in existence at the time when
notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and the Land Acquisition
Collector had recommended its release. Contents of paragraph Nos.3, 8 and
10, read thus:-
4
CWP No.15150 of 2010
“3. That in reply to para no.3 of writ petition it is submitted
that as per revenue record maintained by this office neither the
petitioners nor the predecessor of the petitioners were owner
at the time of issuance of notification u/s 4 dated 26.9.2007.
Hence, they are not entitled to challenge the acquisition
proceedings. Rest of the contents of this para are denied for
want of knowledge.
8. That the contents of para no.8 of writ petition are
admitted to the extent that the petitioners filed their objections
u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition Act and the Land Acquisition
Collector recommended to release being developed as housing
society, but the recommendation of the Land Acquisition
Collector is not binding upon the Govt. Rest of the contents of
this para are matter of record.
10. That in reply to para no.10 of writ petition it is
submitted that the construction which was existing at the time
of issuance of notification u/s 4 has been recommended to
release from the acquisition. Rest of the contents of this para
are denied for want of knowledge.”
At the time of arguments, the State counsel, by making
reference to the contents of paragraph No.3 on merits, tried to raise an
objection that as the petitioners were not shown owners in the revenue
record at the time when a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued,
as such, writ petition filed by them is not maintainable.
We feel that the argument raised is frivolous and is liable to be
rejected. In their objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, the
petitioners have clearly stated that Sunil Batra had purchased the land vide
5
CWP No.15150 of 2010
sale deed dated 18.12.1989 and then had constructed a house thereon, in
which, they are residing. Copy of the sale deed was also produced before
the Land Acquisition Collector. It is also on record that the Land
Acquisition Collector recommended release of their house.
Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that by
not releasing their property, a discrimination has been done with the
petitioners because relief was granted, by releasing land, to many other land
owners of the adjoining area. To press his claim, reliance has been placed
on ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Ram and
another v. The State of Haryana and others, JT 2010 (2) SC 235.
We feel that the argument raised is perfectly justified. The
petitioners are the owners of a very small piece of land, which, their
predecessor in interest had purchased in a planned colony. After looking
into the contents of the reply filed, objections under Section 5-A, raised by
the petitioners and also photographs put on record, we are satisfied that the
house was in existence when notification under Section 4 of the Act was
issued. In the reply filed, the respondents have clearly admitted that in this
village 31.65 acres of land with construction was released from acquisition
by taking note of objections filed by the land owners under Section 5-A of
the Act. We are surprised as to why that very relief was not granted to the
petitioners. It appears that they were denied their due only on account of a
fact that their names were not mentioned in the revenue record. We feel that
it was not a valid ground to decline relief to them. Such like hostile ground
to discriminate amongst the land owners has adversely been commented
upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Ram’s case (supra). Case of
the petitioners is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment in that case.
6
CWP No.15150 of 2010
In view of facts mentioned above, we allow this writ petition,
quash notification dated 26.9.2007 (P7), issued under Section 4 of the Act,
declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 25.9.2008 (P11) and an
award passed on 24.9.2010, qua the land of the petitioners in this writ
petition.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
05.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
gk Judge
7
