Mehinder Singh v. State of Haryana

oCWP-10068-1988o(Oo&oM) -1-2023:PHHC:118125-DBo INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABo&oHARYANA AToCHANDIGARH. oooooooooCWP-10068-1988o(Oo&oM) oooooooooooooooooooReservedoon:o31.08.2023 oooooooooPronouncedoon:o05.09.2023 MOHINDERoSINGHoANDoANOTHER ......Petitioners Versus THEoSTATEoOFoHARYANAoANDoANOTHER oooooooooo....Respondents CORAM:o HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoSURESHWARoTHAKUR oooooooo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEooKULDEEPoTIWARI Arguedoby:o Mr.oAkshayoBhan,oSenioroAdvocateoassistedoby Mr.oJiveshoMalik,oAdvocate, Mr.oHarshoVasuoGupta,oAdvocateoando Mr.oAbhijeetoRawlry,oAdvocateoo forotheopetitioners. Mr.oAnkuroMittal,oAddl.oA.G.,oHaryanaowitho Mr.oSaurabhoMago,oDAG,oHaryana. Mr.oKamaloSharma,oAdvocateoando Mr.oRajaoSharma,oAdvocate fororespondent-HUDA.o **** o,oJo.oSURESHWARoTHAKURo

¶1Throughotheoinstantopetition,otheopetitionersochallengeothe validityoofoaonotification,oasobecameoissuedounderoSectiono4oofotheoLand AcquisitionoAct,o1894o(hereinafteroforoshortocalledoasotheo'Actoofo1894'). Moreover,otheopetitionersoalsoomakeoaochallengeotootheovalidityoof issuanceoofoaonotificationounderoSectiono6oofotheo'Actoofo1894'.

¶2Theoaboveonotification(s)obecameorespectivelyoissuedoon

27.08.1987o(AnnexureoP-1)oandoono22.08.1988o(AnnexureoP-5)oandothe 2023.09.09 16:18 consequentotheretooawardobecameopassedoono20.03.1989.o oCWP-10068-1988o(Oo&oM) -2-2023:PHHC:118125-DBo

¶3Significantly,ointerimodirectionsowereopassedoinotheoinstant writopetitionobyothisoCourtoono04.11.1993,othusostayingodis-possessionoof theopetitionersoandotheosaidodirectionsowereomadeoabsolute,othroughoan orderomadeobyothisoCourtoono13.12.1993.

¶4Throughoaodecisionomadeoono23.11.2007,otheowritopetition (supra)owasodisposedoofowithocertainodirection(s).oTheorelevantoportion ofotheosameoisoextractedohereinafter. "..... o Since o the o petitioners o have o no o objection o to o the acquisitionoofotheolandocoveredobyotheopublicoutilities mentionedoabove,otheoapplicationoforovacationoofostayoi.e. C.M.oNo.o13172oofo2007oisoallowedoandostayoinorespectoof theoacquiredolandocoveredounderokhasraoNo.o6/1oando10 andomarkedoyellowoinosajraoplanoofoSectoro29oisohereby vacated. Inoviewoofotheovacationoofostayoinorespectoofotheoland coveredobyopublicoutilities,otheoremainingolandoisonotoatoall requiredoforoanyopublicopurposeobecauseoinorespectoofothe partoofotheolandowhichowasoacquiredoforopublicopurpose, stayoorderohasobeenovacatedotoday. Thisopetitionoisodisposedoofowithoaodirectionothatothe partoofotheopetitioners'olandomarkedoyellowoshallostand acquiredowhileotheoremainingopartoofotheoacquiredoland shall o be o released o from o acquisition o altogether. o The petitionersomayopursueotheirocaseoforocompensationoforothe acquiredoportionobeforeotheoappropriateoforum."

¶5Feeling o aggrieved o from o the o order o (Supra), o the o State Government-HUDAopreferredoLPAoNo.o129-2012obeforeothisoCourt. Throughoanoorderodrawnoono19.01.2017,otheolearnedoDivisionoBenchoof thisoCourt,othusoorderedofororestorationoofotheowritopetitiono(supra)otooits originalonumber,othusoforoaodecisionoonomeritsobeingomadeothereons.oThe relevantoportionoofotheoverdicto(supra)oisoextractedohereinafter.KAVNEET SINGH oCWP-10068-1988o(Oo&oM) -3-2023:PHHC:118125-DBo "xxxxxooAfterohearingolearnedocounseloforotheoparties,owe areoofotheoopinionothatotheolearnedoSingleoJudgeofelloin graveoerroroinoconcludingothatotheoappellantsohadoforegone theirocontestoinotheomainowritopetitionsoquaotheoentire acquisitionoquestionedobyotheolandoowners.oItowasoonly withoaolimitedoprayerothatotheyohadoapproachedothisoCourt toopermitothemotoocontinueowithotheodevelopmentoworksoand releaseosomeoportionoofotheolandofromotheoimpactoofothe stay o order o since o these o works o were o of o paramount importanceoandoofoanourgentonature.oTheoentireoreadingoof the o applications o does o not o remotely o suggest o that o they intendedotoosettleotheowritopetitionsoinotheseoterms. Consequently,oweoacceptotheopresentoappeals andomodifyotheoorderoofotheolearnedoSingleoJudgeotoosayothat itowouldobeoapplicableotootheolandothatostandoutilizedofor publicopurposesobutoinosoofaroasochallengeotootheoremaining landoisoconcernedotheopartiesowouldobeofreeotooagitateothe sameoonomerits.oTherefore,oweorestoreotheowritopetitions bearingonos.o3340,o3342,o3344oofo1991oando10628oando10068 ofo1998otootheirooriginalonumbersoandodirectotheirolistingoas perorosterosoothatotheyocanobeodecidedoonomeritsoquaothe controversyoandotheobenefitsounderoSectiono24(2)oofotheoAct.o SinceotheoaffidavitoofotheoAdministratorowasoto beofiledoonlyoinooneoconnectedoLPAobearingono.o2256oof 2011, o the o costs o imposed o vide o this o Court's o order o dated

18.10.2016oinoallotheoLPAsoshallostandowaivedoandowillostand inosaidoLPAoonly."

¶6The o petitioners o now o challenge o the o issuance o of notification(s) o for o acquisition o (supra), o thus o through o invoking o the mandateoofoSectiono24o(2)oof oTheoRightotooFairoCompensationoand TransparencyoinoLandoAcquisition,oRehabilitationoandoResettlement Act,o2013o(hereinafteroforoshortoreferotooasotheo'Actoofo2013'),owhereby, thereoisolapsingoofotheoearlierolaunchedoacquisitionoproceedingsounder oCWP-10068-1988o(Oo&oM) -4-2023:PHHC:118125-DBo theo'Actoofo1894'.

¶7The o learned o counsel o for o the o petitioners o submits, o that subsequentotootheoissuanceoofonotification(s)o(supra),otheopetitionersoon

16.09.1987oinstitutedoobjectionsounderoSectiono5Aoofotheo'Actoofo1894' (AnnexureoP-2).oInotheosaidoobjectionsotheopetitionersocontended,othatoon theoacquiredolands,otheyohadomadeoAoClassoconstructionsobesidesoalso contended,othatothereoisosamadhioofotheograndofatheroofotheopetitioners, onotheoacquiredolands.oFurther,otheyoalsoocontendedotherein,othatoonothe acquiredolands,oexistoanooldomandirowhereotheofamilyomembersoofothe petitionersopayoobeisance.oConsequently,oitoisocontendedothatotheoorder madeobyotheorespondentsoconcerned,othusorejectingotheosaidoobjections whereafterotheyohadoissuedoaodeclarationounderoSectiono6oofotheo'Actoof 1894'o(AnnexureoP-5),othusoisotainted.oMoreover,oitoisoalsoocontended thatotheorespondentsohaveoproceededotooadoptotheopracticeoofoinvidious discrimination,oinasmuchoas,otheorespondentsoreleasingotheoacquired lands ovis-a-visootheroestateoholders,owhereas,otheorespondentsoyet proceedingotoosubjectotheopetitionolandsotooacquisition,othroughomaking anoawardoono20.03.1989.o

¶8However,oforotheoreasonsotoobeoassignedohereinafter,othe aboveomadeogroundoisorudderlessoandoisorejected.oTheoprimaryoreasons fororejectingotheoaboveogroundoisofounded,oupon,otheorespondentsoin theiroreply-affidavit,oasowelloasoinotheiroarguments,ofirmlyocontending thatotheowritoland(s),owasoacquiredoforofurtheringotheorequisiteopublic purpose,obutoonlyoonoaccountooforenditionoofointerimoordersoagainstothe petitioners o becoming o dis-possessed o fromo the o said o lands, o that o the execution o of o the o public o work, o thus, o became o forestalled. o Since 2023.09.09 16:18 predominanceoisotoobeoassignedotootheopublicopurpose,othanotooindividual oCWP-10068-1988o(Oo&oM) -5-2023:PHHC:118125-DBo interestsoofotheoestateoholdersoconcerned.oTherefore,oinodoingoso,othis Courtorefrainsotooallowotheopetitionersoclaimoforotheoacquiredolands becomingoreleasedofromoacquisition.o

9.o Furthermore,otheosaidoclaimocouldohaveobeenowellofounded onlyoinotermsoofoSectiono48oofotheo'Actoofo1894'ooprovisionsowhereofoare extractedohereinafter. "48. o Completion o of o acquisition o not o compulsory, o but compensationotoobeoawardedowhenonotocompleted.o -o(1) Except o in o the o case o provided o for o in o section o 36, o the Government o shall o be o at o liberty o to o withdraw o from o the acquisitionoofoanyolandoofowhichopossessionohasonotobeen taken.o

(2)oWheneverotheoGovernmentowithdrawsofromoanyosuch acquisition,otheoCollectoroshallodetermineotheoamountoof compensationodueoforotheodamageosufferedobyotheoowneroin consequenceoofotheonoticeooroofoanyoproceedingsothereounder, andoshallopayosuchoamountotootheopersonointerested,otogether withoallocostsoreasonablyoincurredobyohimoinotheoprosecution ofotheoproceedingsounderothisoActorelatingotootheosaidoland.o

(3)oxxxxx

10.o However,osinceotheostageofororeleasesoofotheoacquiredolands becomingocausedoinotermsoofotheostatutoryoprovisionso(supra),othusocould beodoneoonlyobeforeotheoassumptionoofopossessionothereofoand/orobefore theopronouncementoofoaward,oand,onotosubsequentothereto(s).oTherefore, whenotheoorder,oifoany,othusodismissingotheoobjectionsoratherowas requiredotoobeoassailedopromptly,othusoonoitsobecomingomade,owhereas, itoremainingoomittedotoobeochallenged,otherebyotheopetitionersoare estoppedoonoaccountoofoappositeowaiversoandoabandonments,otoomakeoa challengeotootheodismissaloorders,oifoany,oasobecameomadeoonotheir objections,oas,ocastounderoSectiono5Aoofotheo'Actoofo1894'.o oCWP-10068-1988o(Oo&oM) -6-2023:PHHC:118125-DBo

11.o Theofurtheroconsequenceothereof,oisoalso,othatosinceothe discretionotoobeoexercisedowithinotheoambitoofoSectiono48o(supra)oas occursoinotheo'Actoofo1894',oisotoobeoexercisedopriorotootheoassumptionoof possessionooropriorotootheomakingoofotheoawardoofotheoacquiredolands, whereas,otheoawardoinotheoinstant ocaseobecomingopronouncedoon

20.03.1989,onorowhenoaopromptopetitionobecameofiledobeforeothisoCourt, challengingotheoorder,oifoany,orejectingotheoobjectionsoasoraisedounder Sectiono5Aoofotheo'Actoofo1894'.oConsequently,otheoclaimofororeleasing theowritolandsofromoacquisition,oespeciallyowhenotheosameobecomes acquiredoforosub-servingotheorequisiteopublicopurpose,oisobothomis-foundedoandoaomis-espousedorelief,oand,oisoliableotoobeorejected.

¶12Now,oassuminglyothereowasopromptoraisingoofochallenge(s) byotheopetitionersoinotheodismissaloorderomadeoonotheiroobjections,oyet whenoapartofromothisoCourtoorderingoforostayingotheodis-possessionoof theopetitionersofromotheodisputedolands,othusonotomakingoanyoorder restrainingotheorespondentsofromomakingoanoaward.oResutlantlyothe effectoofotheononopassingoofotheoordero(Supra),oisothat,otheodismissal order,oifoany,oasobecameomadeoonotheorelevantoobjection(s),omergesointo theoawardoasomadeoquaotheoacquiredolands,otherebyotheochallengeotoothe order,oifoany,orejectingotheoobjectionsofiledounderoSectiono5Aoofotheo'Act ofo1894',othusobecomesoinfructuous.

13.o Consequently,otheoaboveogroundoofodiscriminationobut raisedoonoparityobeingodeniedotootheowritopetitionersoquaosimilarly situated olandsoofoestateoholders oconcerned,o is othus,oaocompletely rudderlessoargumentoandoisorejected.

¶14Theofurtheroreasonofororejectingotheoaboveosubmission 2023.09.09 16:18 becomesofoundedouponotheofactumothatotheoinstantopetition,oratherobeing oCWP-10068-1988o(Oo&oM) -.- 2023:PHHC:118125-DBo "itobyo#ogrossoper&#si&eo&i'eoo,ode)#yso#ndo)#'"es.oT"eore#sono,or .#!ingot"eo#bo&eo'on')usionobe'o.esosp#r!edo,ro.ot"eo,#'tu.%ot"#t t"eo'"#))engeotoot"eo#,ore%o"#sobeeno.#deo#,tero#).ostot"irtyo,i&eoye#rs e)#psing%osin'eot"eo)#un'"ingoo,o#'5uisitionopro'eedingsounderot"eo9A't o,o26739.oResu)t#nt)y%ot"eo#ppositeo+ritopetitionobeingo"itobyot"eo#bo&e &i'eo#sosu'"%ot"eoe?t#ntopetitionodeser&esobe'o.ingore*e'ted.oo

¶15Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in case titled "M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. V/s State of Haryana and others", reported in (1996) 11 SCC 698, has in the relevant paragraph of its verdict, paragraph whereof becomes extracted hereinafter, thus declared that any belated challenge, as made to the relevant lawful fully terminated acquisition proceedings, thus is hit by the vices of delay and laches, and thereby too, the said belated motion as existing in the instant petition, is but required to be declared as misconstituted. "Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner had no knowledge of the acquisition proceedings; as soon as it came to know of the acquisition, it had challenged the validity of the acquisition proceedings and, therefore, it furnishes cause of action to the petitioner. He further contends that the writ petition could not be dismissed on the ground of laches but was required to be considered on merits. We find no force in the contention. Any encumbrance created by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the State if the possession of land is already taken over after the award came to be passed. The land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances under Section

¶16In Gurmukh Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Haryana [J] 1995

(8) SC 208], this Court had held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to challenge the legality of the acquisition proceedings on the ground of lack of publication of the notification. In Y.N. Garg vs State of Rajasthan [1996 (1) SCC 284] and Sneh Prabha 2023.09.09 16:18 vs. State of U.P. [1996 (7) 325], this Court had held the alienation oCWP-10068-1988o(Oo&oM) -8-2023:PHHC:118125-DBo made by the erstwhile owner of the land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), do not bind either the State Government or the beneficiary for whose benefit the land was acquired. The purchaser does not acquire any valid title. Even the colour of title claimed by the purchaser was void. The beneficiary is entitled to have absolute possession free from encumbrances. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman & Anr. vs. M/s Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow & Ors. {(1996) 1 SCC 124], this Court had further held that the purchaser of the property, after the notification under Section 4(1) was published, is devoid of right to challenge the validity of the notification or irregularity in taking possession of the land before publication of the declaration under Section 6. As regards laches in approaching the Court, this Court has been consistently taking the view starting from State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Bhailal Bhai & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1006] wherein a Constitution Bench had held that it is not either desirable or expedient to lay down a rule of universal application but the unreasonable delay denies to the petitioner, the discretionary extraordinary remedy of mandamus, certiorari or any other relief. The same was view reiterated in catena of decisions, viz., Rabindranath Bose & Ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors. [(1970 (1) SCC 84]; State of Mysore & Ors. vs. Narsimha Ram Naik [AIR 1975 SC 2190]; Aflatoon & Anr. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi [ (1975) 4 SCC 285]; M/s. Tilokchand Motichand & Ors. vs. H.B. Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay & Anr. [AIR 1970 SC 898]; State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. etc. V. L. Krishnan & Ors. etc. [JT 1995 (8) SC 1]; Improvement Trust, Faridkot & Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors. [1987 Supp. SCC 608]; State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Hari Om Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Amritsar [1987 Supp. SCC 687]; Market Committee, Hodal vs. Krishan Murari & Ors. [JT 1995 (8) SC 494] and State of Haryana vs. Dewan Singh [(1996 (7) SCC 394] wherein this Court had held that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the acquisition proceedings. This Court in the latest judgement in Municipal Corporation of Great Bombay vs. The Industrial Development & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. [JT 1996 (8) SC 16], reviewed the entire case law and held that the person who approaches the Court belatedly will be told that oCWP-10068-1988o(Oo&oM) -9-2023:PHHC:118125-DBo lachesocloseotheogatesoofotheoCourtoforohimotooquestionotheolegality ofotheonotificationounderoSectiono4(1),odeclarationounderoSectiono6 andotheoawardoofotheoCollectorounderoSectiono11.o" FinaloorderoofothisoCourt.

16.o Inoaftermath,othisoCourtofindsonoomeritoinotheowritopetition, theosameobeingocompletelyofrivolous,othusoisorequiredotoobeodismissed withocosts.oTherefore,otheosameoisodismissedowithocostsoofoRs.o50,000/- to obeoforthwithodeposited obyotheopetitionersowith otheo'Himachal PradeshoAapadaoRaahatoKosho-o2023'o foromitigatingotheonatural disasteroinotheoStateoconcerned.o

¶17Theoimpugnedonotification(s)oandotheoconsequentothereto awardoareomaintainedoandoaffirmed.o

¶18Sinceotheomainocaseoitselfohasobeenodecided,othus,oallothe pendingoapplication(s),oifoany,oalsoostand(s)odisposedoof. o ooooooo(SURESHWARoTHAKUR) ooooooooooJUDGEo o(KULDEEPoTIWARI)

05.09.2023 JUDGE kavneetosinghooo Whetherospeaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whetheroreportable : Yes/No