'Failed To Prove Any Hostile Discrimination': Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines To Release Gurudwara Acquired In 1991
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to release religious structure namely 'Gurudwara Sanjha Sahib' from acquisition, observing that no hostile discrimination was found in the acquisition.The plea was filed back in 1999, the acquisition of land was done for public purpose by the Land Acquisition Collector in 1991.Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal said, "The...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court refused to release religious structure namely 'Gurudwara Sanjha Sahib' from acquisition, observing that no hostile discrimination was found in the acquisition.
The plea was filed back in 1999, the acquisition of land was done for public purpose by the Land Acquisition Collector in 1991.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal said, "The petitioner has failed to prove any hostile discrimination as the petitioner's property falls in the alignment of V-3 road, whereas, the other parcels of land could be adjusted in the planned development of the area."
The bench further noted that the plea lacks merit on the ground that the writ petition was filed in the year 1999 while in 1991, the land had already vested in the Union Territory as the award under Section 11A was announced on 27.03.1991 by the Land Acquisition Collector and the petitioner did not file any objections to the proposed acquisition within a period of 30 days as provided under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act.
Baba Charanjit Kaur had filed the plea challenging the acquisition of the gurudwara on the ground that the personal notices under Section 4, 6 and 9 of the 1894 Act, were not served.
It further added that the premises is being used for religious purposes and certain parcels of plots of various other institutions have been released.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, "the Gurudwara was constructed after purchasing the property in December, 1986. It is alleged that the Gurudwara was constructed before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, however, as per the stand of the respondent, the petitioner's plot falls within the road alignment of V-3 road and application filed by the petitioner has been considered and rejected by the Administration."
The bench further opined that there is no provision for service of personal notice with respect to notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act.
"As per the provisions of the Act, the notifications shall be published in the newspaper as well as Official Gazette. It is not the case of the petitioner that the notice was not published in the newspapers or the Official Gazette. As per the U.T. Administration's stand, the entry in the revenue record in favour of Gurudwara was made for the first time in the year 1991, which is disputed by the petitioner. Hence, disputed questions of fact are involved. In any case, failure to serve notice under Section 9 of the 1894 Act would not vitiate the acquisition particularly when the land has already vested with the Union Territory, Chandigarh," it added.
On contention to issue directions to U.T. Administration to release the compensation along with interest, the bench noted that, "there is no prayer in the writ petition with respect to compensation."
However, it said that the 1894 Act lays down the procedure for claiming compensation for acquisition of the land which may be availed by the petitioner.
While disposing of the plea, the Court directed to "forthwith remove the religious structure and complete the construction of rotary in public interest."
Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-23369-2017).
Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-14168-1999).
Mr. Jaivir Chandail, Addl. Standing Counsel Mr. Himanshu Arora, Panel Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh
Title: PEACOCK ENVIRONMENT AND WILDLIFE PROTECTION SOCIETY v. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 307