Chander Singh Etc v. State of Haryana and Anr

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

¶1Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners pray for quashing of notification (Annexure P-3) issued on 17.11.2005, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894"); and notification (Annexure P-4) issued on 07.02.2006, under Section 6 of the Act of 1894,   besides   pray   for   quashing   of   impugned   order   dated   17.06.2015 (Annexure P-7).

¶2The impugned notifications are claimed to become lapsed by the petitioners,   thus   by   virtue   of   the   Section   24(2)   of  the   Right   to   Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013"). 2024.04.19 11:323. The Government of Haryana through the impugned notifications CWP-15699-2016 -2-     2024:PHHC:051372-DB acquired   lands,   measuring   2068.52   acres,   for   public   purpose   namely development of Sectors 65 to 68, Sonepat (Rajiv Gandhi Educational city).

¶4Through an order made on 30.11.2016, in the instant writ petition, this Court allowed the petition and the acquisition proceedings were declared to have become lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The said verdict was challenged by the Government of Haryana before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing SLP (C) No.6293 of 2023, which was converted into Civil Appeal No.2150 of 2023.

¶5The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   contesting   litigants, consensually submit before this Court that the instant petition is covered by paragraph Nos. 3 and 7 of the verdict made, on 11.04.2023, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the Civil Appeal (supra), paragraphs whereof are extracted hereinafter. "3. In all these appeals, the issue relates to the first category, namely, where before the High Court, the original writ petitioners   challenged   the   acquisition/acquisition   proceedings under the Act, 1894, which, as such, were filed much prior to the Act,   2013   came   into   force   and   submitted   the   amendment applications for the relief of deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 on the grounds that neither the possession   was   taken   over   nor   the   compensation   was paid/tendered. Without deciding the  writ petitions on merits on other   grounds,   more   particularly  the   grounds   on   which   the acquisition/acquisition   proceedings   under   the  Act,  1894   were under challenge, solely relying upon the decision of this Court in the   case   of  Pune   Municipal   Corporation   v.   Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has allowed the writ petitions and has declared that the acquisition ITHLESH KUMAR with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed CWP-15699-2016 -3-     2024:PHHC:051372-DB under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. 4, 5, 6. xxx

7.  In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the civil appeals as per para 3 of this judgment, arising out of the impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court   of   Punjab   and   Haryana   at   Chandigarh   in   CWP   No. 4015/2006   and   other   allied   writ   petitions   are   allowed.   The impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is/are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the matters are remitted back to the High Court to decide and dispose of the main writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits on other issues except the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013. We request the High Court to finally decide and dispose of  the writ  petitions  on  remand at  the earliest  and preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of the present order. All contentions and defences which are available to the respective parties are kept open to be considered by the High Court in accordance with law and on their own merits (except the submission of applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013)."

¶6Through an order of 11.04.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remitted the matters to this High Court, thus to decide and dispose of the writ petitions afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits, on other issues except the applicability of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. Therefore, this Court is in terms of the directions contained in the said paragraphs, thus required to decide and dispose of the instant writ petition afresh in accordance with law, and, on its own merits and issues. However, though the Hon'ble Apex Court in terms of the above extracted paragraphs, has declared that the instant ITHLESH KUMARwrit petition be decided afresh excepting the applicability of Section 24(2) of CWP-15699-2016 -4-     2024:PHHC:051372-DB t)e A't o( 56-2% to t)e inst$nt +rit petition.

¶4Be t)$t $s it "$y% yet t)is Court is re.uired to be 'onsidering t)e &$#idity o( t)e re@e'tion order p$ssed by t)e 'o"petent $ut)ority /Ann. P143. :. A   re$ding   o(   Annetiure   P14   dis'#oses%   t)$t   it   +$s   "$de   in pursu$n'e to t)e dire'tions p$ssed by t)is Court in CCP1578:2156-8. T)e oper$ti&e p$r$ o( t)e s$id dire'tions $re etitr$'ted )erein$(ter. "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the fact that the petitioners have raised disputed questions of facts with regard to their possession on the acquired land and non-payment of compensation to them, we dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat (respondent No.2 herein) in this regard. If any such representation is submitted by the petitioners, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the same, within a reasonable time, after issuing notice to the HUDA, for whom the land was acquired, and after hearing the HUDA and the petitioners, by passing a speaking order. If the claim as set out by the petitioners with regard to their possession over the acquired land and non-payment of compensation to them is found to be correct, then respondent No.2 will send the case to the appropriate Government for taking action in the matter under Section 24 (2) of the Act.4 ;. T)roug) t)e s$id order t)e '#$i" r$ised by t)e petitioners (or t)eirs est$tesD#$nds being re#e$sed (ro" $'.uisition be'$"e re@e'ted. -6. T)e   re$son   (or   not   re#e$sing   t)e   petitionersA   #$nds   be'o"es (ounded upon t)e ($'tu"% t)$t t)e s$id #$nds $re $n integr$# 'o"ponent o( t)e #$yout 'u" de"$r'$tion p#$n. !oreo&er% +)en it is $#so st$ted t)erein% t)$t t)e de&e#op"ent +or*s on t)e $'.uired #$nds )$&e been 'o"p#eted. 2024.04.19 11:32--. Resu#t$nt#y% sin'e t)e order re@e'ting t)e petitionersA '#$i" (or CWP-15699-2016 -5-     2024:PHHC:051372-DB releasing their lands from acquisition, thus became founded upon the well made premise (supra). Consequently, when the preparation of the layout plan is done through employments of the expertise of the Engineering Cell concerned. Therefore, the expertise employed by the Engineering Cell of the Acquiring Authority concerned, rather is not required to be tinkered with. Since the inclusions thereins the acquired lands of the present petitioners, rather do thereby further and facilitate the public purpose. Moreover, when the said public purpose is spoken in the impugned order (Annexure P-7) to become completed through development works being made thereons. Resultantly, at this belated stage, this Court does not deem it fit, and, appropriate to release the lands of the petitioners.

¶12Hence, this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition, hence the same is dismissed.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE (LALIT BATRA)

18.04.2024   JUDGE

CWP-15699-2016 -1- 2024:PHHC:051372-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP-15699-2016 Reserved on: 04.04.2024 Pronounced on: 18.04.2024 CHANDER SINGH AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE LALIT BATRA Argued by: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG Haryana with Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ****