Land Acquisition By State For "Public Purpose" Can't Be Disputed At The Drop Of A Hat: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reiterates

The observation came from a division bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Ashok Kumar Verma:

"In the present case, land vests in the State and the same is being utilized for allotment of plots. Moreover, while dismissing the earlier writ petition (CWP-13332-2007), it was observed that 236 plots were less, which could not be offered to the allottees. Hence, keeping in view the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ram Swaroop's case (supra), the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 (Annexure P-17), whereby representation for release of land under Section 101-A of 2013 Act, has been rejected, does not require any interference by this Court."

In the present matter, the petitioner was seeking quashing of order dated 12 November, 2021 passed by the Principal Secretary, Town and Country Planning-cum-Principal Secretary, Urban Estate Department, whereby representation made by the petitioners under Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, had been dismissed.

Another prayer that was rejected was for quashing of the notification dated 24 August 2008 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Award dated 21 July, 2003.

The petitioner informed the court that the same issue was under challenge under two petitions before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and was dismissed on 28 October, 2013. In the aforesaid petitions, the petitioner had challenged the notification on two grounds- The first ground was that the land was being acquired for residential purpose and the petitioners/builder had already requested for grant of CLU for that very purpose and secondly, the acquisition had been made without application of mind and the plea that the acquired land would be used for by carving out residential plots was an afterthought plea taken at the time of filing of the written statement.

The petitions were dismissed by the Court by observing that the land had been acquired for multiple purposes like commercial, residential and institutional. 2953 plots were planned and floated for allotment, but due to non-availability of land, Haryana Urban Development Authority had not been able to offer plots to 236 allottees. The Court also observed that the petitioner had purchased the land on 16 December, 2003 after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Apart from that the court observed that since the land had been acquired for public purpose and after floating out the plots, offer could not be made to 236 allottees, the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act was upheld.

State informed the Court that the petitioner had also challenged the acquisition in 2004 in a writ petition titled Amar Singh vs. State of Haryana which was disposed of by directing the High Power Committee to decide the representation. The claim was rejected by the High Powered Committee on 29 May, 2007 on the ground that the application had been submitted by the petitioner for setting up of commercial colony. There was no representation for release of residential structures, which showed that the land in question was not being used for residential activity. Another ground for rejection was that the land was under acquisition and the license was applied for after acquisition. The order rejecting the claim of the petitioner was the challenged under the above mentioned petitions.

The Court after examining order dated 12 November observed that that petitioner-Kishan Chand and others had made a representation for release of their land under Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act and vide speaking order dated 24.07.2017, Chairman, Zonal Committee-cum-Zonal Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram, rejected the case for release of land. The petitioners also went up to the Supreme Court challenging the order. The Apex Court passed a direction to decide the representation of the applicants.

The same was rejected by the authority observing that the land in question was essential for the intended purpose of acquisition and it was not covered under the provisions of Section 101-A of 2013 Act, where the sine qua non is that the acquisition is "unviable or non-essential." With these observations, the representation of the petitioners was rejected.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana noted that even way-back in the year 2013 when writ petition challenging the above said notification had been dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2013, it had been observed that 236 allottees could not be offered the plots. Hence, utility of the acquired land was there and in no circumstances, it can be said that the acquisition was not made for public purpose.

Court placed reliance on the case of Raghubir Singh & another vs. State of Haryana and others wherein it was observed that it was the bounden duty of the State to examine the relevant facts and form suitable opinion as may be advised, regarding lands having become unviable or non-essential or not. The opinion of the State Government cannot be disputed by landowner at the drop of the hat.

In view of the above discussion, the court dismissed the petition.