This order shall dispose of a bunch of 33 petitions* as common
questions of law and facts are involved. However, the facts are being taken
from Civil Writ Petition No.3494 of 1990.
The challenge in these petitions is to the notification dated
30.1.1989 (Annexure P2), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). The declaration under Section 6 of the Act
(Annexure P3) acquiring the land was made on 25.1.1990. The public
purpose of acquiring the land declared in the aforesaid notifications was for
development and utilisation of land for commercial area in Sector 30 of
village Silokhera and Sukhrali, District Gurgaon.
The averments made in the petitions are that the land belonging
to the influential persons had either not been acquired or it had later been
released. In para 6 of this petition such like allegations have been made. It
has also been averred that huge area has been released from acquisition
which would be evident from the perusal of para 8.
The writ petitions were admitted on 13.11.1990. The interim
directions were issued staying the dispossession and further proceedings
against the petitioners.
The matter had been contested and respondents have filed their
separate replies.
Mr.RM Singh and Mr.Puneet Bali, learned counsel for the
petitioners have, at the outset, brought to the notice of this Court that the
aforesaid notification issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were also the
C.W.P. No.3494 of 1990 -3-
subject matter of challenge in Civil Writ Petition No.3059 of 1990 on
similar grounds. The said writ petition was also decided by a learned
Single Judge vide order dated 23.12.2006, and the notification under
Section 6 of the Act was quashed. In the appeal i.e. LPA No.179 of 2008
filed by the respondent-State, the view taken by the learned Single Judge
was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed on 24.9.2008. The Letters'
Patent Bench has noticed the subsequent events which had taken place after
the filing of the petition, which are to the effect that the land belonging to
many builders covered by the aforesaid acquisition proceedings, had been
released which include M/s East India Hotels Ltd., Gurgaon, M/s DLF
Universal Limited and S/Sh.Gopal Ram @ Gopi, Jai Bhagwan, Ram Singh,
Sri Niwas, Kamal Kumar, Shyam Lata, Hari Chand and Smt.Nirmal Kanta
wife of Sh.Daya Nand. Reference has also been made to the instances of
releasing acquired land measuring 30 acres vide letter dated 19.9.1995. The
Letter' Patent Bench has also taken notice of the fact that a collaboration
agreement was entered into by various builders with the owners of the land
who were later on granted licence by the Town and Country Planning
Department for establishing and developing the land for various purposes,
like Cyber Park Colony, Commercial Colony, Group Housing Society etc.
On the basis of the aforesaid instances, the Division Bench has concluded
that the land had been released in favour of several persons but the same
was to be developed privately by the builders and that 'A' class residential
construction existed which deserved to be exempted from acquisition. An
inference of discrimination was found to be patent in ignoring to consider
the case of the petitioners while selectively releasing the land of other
similarly situated persons. It is well settled that power of acquisition of
C.W.P. No.3494 of 1990 -4-
land cannot be used for profiteering and in that regard reliance is placed on
Bhagat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 534 and BEML
Employees House Building Cooperative Society Limited v. State of
Karnataka and others, AIR 2004 (SC) 5054.
After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the view that the
bunch of these petitions is squarely covered by the opinion expressed by
this Court in its judgment dated 24.9.2008 rendered in LPA No.179 of 2008.
Accordingly, the notification dated 25.1.1990 issued under Section 6 of the
Act stands quashed with liberty in the same terms as has been granted by
the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.3059 of 1990.
The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.
A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of other
connected cases.
*Sr.
No.
CWP No. Parties name
1 3494 of 1990 Satish Kumar v Haryana State
2 5073 of 1990 Ram Parshad & ors. v. Haryana State
3 2896 of 1990 Chanderwati v. State of Haryana
4 2961 of 1990 Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana
5 2963 of 1990 Jai Parkash & others v. State of Hy.etc.
6 2964 of 1990 Vijay Avtar v. State of Hy. etc.
7
2965 of 1990 Hindustan Rubber Foram Udyog & ors. V State of Haryana
and others
8 2967 of 1990 Mange Ram etc. v. State of Hr. etc.
9
2969 of 1990 Hindustan Rubber Foram Udyog & ors. V State of Haryana
and others
10 2970 of 1990 Ram Singh etc. v. State of Haryana
11 2971 of 1990 Ram Kumar v State of Haryana
12 2972 of 1990 Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana
13 2974 of 1990 Siri Ram and ors.v. State of Haryana
14 2991 of 1990 Sat Narain Gupta v. State of Haryana
15 3004 of 1990 Subhash Kumar & ors. V State of Haryana
C.W.P. No.3494 of 1990 -5-
*Sr.
No.
CWP No. Parties name
16 3011 of 1990 Pritam Singh & ors. v. State of Haryana
17 3012 of 1990 Pritam Singh & ors. v. State of Haryana & ors.
18 3014 of 1990 Ram Jiwan & ors. vs.State of Haryana & another
19 3026 of 1990 Manju Yadav v.State of Haryana & another
20 3100 of 1990 Chaurrasia Brah v. State of Haryana & another
21
3117 of 1990 Swami Dhirendera Brahmachari & ors. v. State of Haryana &
ors.
22 3148 of 1990 India Chemical & another v. State of Haryana
23 3149 of 1990 Balram & ors. v. State of Haryana
24 3150 of 1990 Balram & ors. v. State of Haryana
25 3151 of 1990 Aikta Marble Inds. & anr. v. State of Haryana
26 3152 of 1990 Parkash v. State of Haryana & ors.
27 3153 of 1990 Pritam Singh & ors. State of Haryana & ors.
28
3154 of 1990 Hindustan Rubber Foram Udyog and ors. v.State of Haryana
& ors.
29
3155 of 1990 Hindustan Rubber Foram Udyog and ors. v.State of Haryana
& ors.
30 3156 of 1990 Hoshiar Singh v.State of Haryana & ors.
31 3176 of 1990 Ajit Singh & ors. v.State of Haryana & ors.
32 3204 of 1990 Pritam Singh & ors. v.State of Haryana & ors.
33 3721 of 1990 Jamuna Dass & ors. v.State of Haryana & ors.
( M. M. KUMAR )
JUDGE
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN )
January 11, 2010 JUDGE
