Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17--Acquisition of land–Public Purpose

2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 2072
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
CWP No. 9483 of 2009
Niranjan Singh
v.
State of Punjab & Ors.
{Decided on 21/06/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Prachi Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17--Acquisition of land–Public Purpose--Urgency--Whenever land is required for a public purpose which in opinion of appropriate government is of urgent importance then after publication of notice in accordance with provisions of Section 17(1) of Act and with previous sanction of State Government Collector may enter upon and take possession of said land although after 48 hours mandatory notice is required in specified cases as per proviso. (Para 19)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17--Acquisition of land –Public Purpose--Urgency--There is no independent application of mind by respondent-State whether urgency is of such a nature that it would not bear even delay which might be required for filing and hearing of objections under Section 5 A of Act--Issuance of notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(2) and Section 6 of Act are liable to be quashed being without jurisdiction. (Para 23)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 r/w S.17 and 5-A--Acquisition of land –Public Purpose--Urgency--Hearing of objections--First issue pertains to utility of existing village pond--Other issue is whether land is required for purpose of constructing another pond and whether same is suitable for aforesaid public purpose--All these questions could have been addressed by filing objections under Section 5A of Act and after hearing of those objections a report could have been sent to Government by Collector--Thereafter Government could have considered report of Collector and a final decision could have been taken--This position emerges from withdrawal of earlier notification issued on 16.11.2007--Delay is caused in finalizing present acquisition proceedings is attributable to State Government--Record shows that on account of additions and deletion of certain land some amendment in earlier notification dated 18.11.2007 was required to be published which could be done by initiating acquisition process afresh--Notifications dated 16.11.2007 and 25.1.2008 earlier issued for same purpose were withdrawn--Whole delay is imputable to respondent-State which impinges upon on invocation of urgency clause--Dispensing with Section 5 A of Act was not automatic and opportunity of filing objections and granting hearing to land owners should have been afforded--Had it been done then persons interested in land could have filed their objections which could eventually be decided by Government--Therefore, notification initiating process of acquisition of land under Section 4 read with Section 17(2) (c) and subsequent notification dated 12.6.2009 are not sustainable. (Para 24 & 25)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4, 6, 5A 9--Objections--Non-filing of

2010(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 2057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
CWP No. 18931 of 2009 (O&M)
Rishi Pal etc.
v.
State of Haryana etc.
{Decided on 05/04/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. N.C.Kinra, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Palika Monga DAG Haryana
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Shallie Taneja, Advocate.
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4, 6, 5A & 9--Objections--Non-filing of--Petitioner unable to produce any receipt of sending objections by registered letter or acknowledgement--He was also not able to show original copy of objections--Identical language in objections filed by petitioners in both set of cases would show that it is an after thought and no objections infact were filed--Notification under Section 4 issued on 15.12.2006 and declaration was made on 14.12.2007 granting ample opportunity to petitioners to file objections and seek their remedy in accordance with law--It cannot be said that no declaration can be made under Section 6 of Act as notification issued under Section 4 has been described as if it is issued by invoking urgency provisions of Section 17(1) of Act--No prejudice could be said to have caused to petitioners--Writ petitions dismissed. (Para 3, 4, 5 & 6)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961, S.8--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--For expanding existing market yard--Acquisition of land for public purpose is within domain of state--What area should be acquired and what area should be left out of acquisition is no concern of Courts--Prohibition to establish market yard for purchase and sale of any agricultural produced imposed on other agencies and bodies were Municipal Committee, Panchayat Samities, Panchayat or local authorities and not on State Government to establish any other sub market yard or principal yard.; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 872
S.4 r/w S.17 and S.6 r/w S.17--Notification--Quashing of--Simultaneous notifications under Section 4 r/w S.17 and under Section 6 r/w 17 on same day cannot be published--Notifications liable to be set aside.; Gurdip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 860

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961, S.8--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--For expanding existing market yard--Acquisition of land for public purpose is within domain of state--What area should be acquired and what area should be left out of acquisition is no concern of Courts--Prohibition to establish market yard for purchase and sale of any agricultural produced imposed on other agencies and bodies were Municipal Committee, Panchayat Samities, Panchayat or local authorities and not on State Government to establish any other sub market yard or principal yard.; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 872
S.4 r/w S.17 and S.6 r/w S.17--Notification--Quashing of--Simultaneous notifications under Section 4 r/w S.17 and under Section 6 r/w 17 on same day cannot be published--Notifications liable to be set aside.; Gurdip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 860

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Punjab Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961, S.8--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--For expanding existing market yard--Acquisition of land for public purpose is within domain of state--What area should be acquired and what area should be left out of acquisition is no concern of Courts--Prohibition to establish market yard for purchase and sale of any agricultural produced imposed on other agencies and bodies were Municipal Committee, Panchayat Samities, Panchayat or local authorities and not on State Government to establish any other sub market yard or principal yard.; Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 872
S.4 r/w S.17 and S.6 r/w S.17--Notification--Quashing of--Simultaneous notifications under Section 4 r/w S.17 and under Section 6 r/w 17 on same day cannot be published--Notifications liable to be set aside.; Gurdip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 860

Acquisition of land--Compensation--Acquisition being one year, one month and 17 days later after compensation settled by Court in same village

shik v. Union Territory, Chandigarh
2009(2) LAW HERALD (P&H)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
R. F. A. No. 3921 of 2007 (O&M)
Arunash Chander Kaushik
v.
Union Territory, Chandigarh
{Decided on 10/02/2009}
For the Appellants: Mr. P. C. Dhiman, Mr. D.S.Raghu, Mr. R. K. Dhiman, Mr. Pritam Saini, Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocates.
For Union Territory, Chandigarh: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Mr. Gurinderjit Singh and Mrs. Lisa Gill, Advocates.
(A) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of land--Compensation--Acquisition being one year, one month and 17 days later after compensation settled by Court in same village--Enhancement of 12% granted in value--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18. (Para 9)
(B) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of land--Compensation--Different valuation of land recorded as Gair Mumkin Nadi, Choe and Khadan in the revenue records--Regular survey of the area was conducted and Khasra Girdwaris were prepared--Quality of acquired land recorded on basis of such khasra gidwaris cannot be faulted--|Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18. (Para 6)
(C) Land and Property Law--Acquisition of land--Compensation--Enhancement of--Not restricted to amount claimed in named of appeal--Appellant's omission to made appropriate claim after paying the requisite court fee cannot be castigated as one lacking bonafide--Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 18. (Para 11)

Declaration of public purpose open to judicial review--Affected party not debarred from alleging and showing absence of such purpose

Amita Banta & Anr. v. State of Haryana
942- 2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 266 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh
CWP No.5878 of 2003(O&M)
Amita Banta & Anr.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 08/12/2009}
For the Petitioners in CWP No.5878 of 2003 and
CWP No.9155 of 2004: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate and Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate.
For the Petitioners in CWP No.6038 of 2003, 9142 and
9181 of 2004: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate.
For the Petitioners in CWP No.11502 of 2004: Mr. Ashish Chopra, Advocate.
For the Petitioners in CWP No.7922 of 2003,
14858 of 2003 and 11637 of 2004: Mr. Virender Kumar Kharta, Advocate.
For the Petitioners in CWP No.8515 of 2003: Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Public Purpose--Declaration of--Judicial Review--Declaration of public purpose open to judicial review--Affected party not debarred from alleging and showing absence of such purpose--Action of State has to be consistent with declared public purpose--Declared public purpose established to be non-existent--Notification for acquisition of land quashed.
Release of Land--Plea that notified purpose was not required to be adhered to or that release to builders amounts to development of State--Is contrary to concept of public purpose under scheme of the act.
Public Purpose--Change of--Public purpose must continue to exist unless unforeseen situation arises--Plea on behalf of state that purpose can change any time even before completion of acquisition and vesting of land in state--Not acceptable.
Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--Release of Land--90% of Land released in favour of private builders--Notified public purpose found non existent--Power of acquisition not exercised for public purpose is vitiated by concept of colourable exercise of power--Exercise of such power not only ultravires the Act but also hit by Article 14, 21 and 300-A.
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 48--Release of Land--Exercise of power by public authority--Scope of power under Section 48 and Judicial review there of--Discussed in light of leading judgments.
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.48--Public Purpose--Release of Land--Land acquired for utilization of land for residential and commercial sector--90% of notified land released in favour of private builder who applied for licence--Plea that notified purpose was not required to be adhered to or that release to builders amounts to development of State--Is contrary to concept of public purpose under scheme of the Act--Notification of acquisition quashed.
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 & 48--Public Purpose--Declaration of--Judicial Review--Declaration of public purpose open to judicial review--Affected party not debarred from alleging and showing absence of such purpose--Action of State has to be consistent with declared public purpose--Declared public purpose established to be non-existent--Notification for acquisition of land quashed.
(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4, 6 & 48--Public Purpose--Change in--Land Acquisition Act being expropriatory legislation has to be strictly construed--What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly--Further, Act being on concurrent list subject, field being occupied by Central Law, State cannot go beyond concept of ‘public purpose’ under the Act.
(E) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.14, 21 & 300-A--Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4, 6, & 48--Acquisition of Land--Public Purpose--Release of Land--90% of Land released in favour of private builders--Notified public purpose found non existent--Power of acquisition not exercised for public purpose is vitiated by concept of colourable exercise of power--Exercise of such power not only ultravires the Act but also hit by Article 14, 21 and 300-A.
(F) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.5-A--Acquisition of Land--Objections--Non-application of mind--No affidavit filed by any of functionaries who dealt decision making at state level to show application of mind to objection filed under Sections 5-A preceding notification under Section 6--Affidavit filed only by collector hardly relevant to show application of mind at level of State Government--Allegation that there was no consideration to objection that in same circumstance, substantial part of notified land was not acquired not rebutted--Held, that there is no valid consideration of objections under Section 5-A vitiating notification under Section 6 of the Act.
(G) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.48--Release of land--Power under Section 48--Acquisition of Land for public purpose--Withdrawal from acquisition--Power under Section 48 is executive power and not source of laying down norms beyond of scheme of Act--Said power having regard to scheme of the Act has to be confined to exceptional situations--If acquisition is not permissible for purpose other than public purpose Section 48 cannot be source of power to act beyond scheme of the Act.
(H) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.48--Withdrawal from acquisition--Scope of power Section 48--Power of withdrawing from acquisition under section 48 can be exercised only for an unforeseen or uncontemplated situation and not by a planned policy which may be in conflict with declared public purpose or scheme of the Act--Release of land by the State under its policy is beyond the scope of Section 48--It can be annulled and appropriate direction issued to bring out situation existing prior to illegal actions of the State.
-----------

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 49 (DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Writ Petition No.3855 of 1982
Dr. Jagdish Singh Sarkaria & Ors.
v.
State of Haryana & Ors.
{Decided on 12/11/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Partap, Advocate and Mr. B.N.S. Sharma, Advocate; and Mr. M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sarin, Advocate and Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Advocate
For the petitioners: Mr. Suveer Sehgal, Advocate.
For the State: Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General Haryana with Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General Haryana.
For the HUDA: Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate.
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6--Acquisition of Land--Publication of notification--Date of publication--Date of publication of the Notification, is the date, on which the gazette Notification is published--No other date can be assigned to it and it will be irrelevant to hold an inquiry, when it was made available for circulation to the public at large--In the absence of any reliable evidence to the contrary--No basis for disbelieving the version given by the respondents on oath that the Notification had in fact been published on 24th June, 1980--A presumption attached to the regularity of official functions in the publication of the Notification on the date on which it purports to be published, remained unrebutted--Contention of the petitioners that the Notification was published after 24th June, 1980 but ante dated as if by way of fraud on the provisions of the Act under which the same was issued rejected.
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6--Publication of Notification in locality--Entry in Roznamcha Wakiali contains number of gazettee notification--In pursuance thereof 29 land owners had filed their objections--No malafide levelled against government--Statement of Patwari relied upon regarding dispute of publication of notification incomplete--Held, that substance of notification was published/announced in locality--Entry in the Roznamcha Wakiati was made on 25th June, 1980 contains the number of gazette Notification in pursuance thereof, 29 land owners had filed their objections--No malafide has been leveled against the Government--Substances of Notification was published.
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6--Acquisition of land--Notification--Subsequent notification--Validity of earlier notification--In view of the interim order, Government officials, proceeded to acquire the land of other land owners by issuing fresh Notifications--Action of the respondents in issuing subsequent Notifications does not lead--Held, That subsequent issuance of Notifications, will not supersede the Notifications issued earlier. (P.40)
(D) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4 & 6--Acquisition of land--Subsequent purchasers--Sale of land and separate agreements of collaboration executed after issuance of notification--Subsequent purchasers and signatories to collaboration agreements not entitled to question validity of notification.
(E) Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.4 & 6--Acquisition of Land--Release of land--Discrimination--Due consideration was given to request made by applications and their collaborator for release of land--Land belonging to applications exclusively planned for economically weaker sections category--No case of individuous discrimination made out--No interference--Due consideration was given to the request made by petitioners No.8 and 9 and their collaborator, for release of the land. It was brought into light that the land, which was released in favour of petitioners No.1 to 3 and Ishwar Chand Aggarwal and others, falls within Part 1 of Sector 20, Panchkula, whereas the land belonging to the applicants falls in Part 2 of Sector 20, Panchkula, which was exclusively planned for economically weaker section category--Application filed by petitioners No.8, 9 and 11, we are of the view that no case of individuous discrimination, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, is made out. (P.48 & 51)
(F) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.226--Public interest litigation--Proper sewerage system--Grievance of petitioners that sewerage and storm water gather in front of their housing societies and emit foul small and cause pollution--Making life of petitioners have become miserable--In reply HUDA stated that sewerage line could not be connected with main sewerage as petitioners to CWP no. 3855 of 1982 and CWP No. 3673 of 1983 were having order of stay of dispossession in their favour--These writ petitions has been decided and order of stay of dispossession is no longer in substance--Authorities who have to lay pipe and connect sewerage pipe of area with main sewerage treatment may proceed immediately--HUDA directed to take all effective adequate steps to redress grievance of petitioners.

------------