Puma Realtors Private Limited v. State of Punjab and Others

IN THE H

Puma Realtors P

Ver State of Punjab

CORAM: HON

HON

Present :

for t

For

Ms.

for r

for r

LAPITA BANER

Pray Constitution of In 2013 (Annexure 1894 (for short September 09, 20 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.9907 O

RESERVED ON

DATE OF DEC Private Limited

sus and others

N'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA N'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advo the petitioner. Maninder Singh, Addl. AG, Pun respondent No.1. Avin Sandhu, Advocate with Maninder Singh, Advocate, respondents No.2 to 4. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, respondent No.5-private builder.

RJI, J. yer in the present petition filed u ndia is, inter-alia, for quashing o P-10) issued under Section 4 o t "1894 Act") along with qu 013 (Annexure P-11) issued und AND HARYANA AT OF 2025 (O&M) N: MAY 15, 2025 CISION: MAY 29, 2025 …Petitioner …Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI ocate, njab,

under Articles 226/227 of the of notifications dated May 09, of the Land Acquisition Act, uashing of declaration dated der Section 6 of the 1894 Act

and subsequent petitioner's land.

2.

The

i)

The (Annexure P-4) w Development for Capital periphery

ii)

Ther developing an int the petitioner com of a sum of Rs Punjab.

iii)

A s P-12) was entere dated April 03, 2

iv) Noti acquiring 1.981 petitioner compa No.5//17 min (0 Khasra No.2/2 ( No.293.

v)

Noti for 1.981 acres under Section 9 o inviting objection proceedings taken thereund

brief facts which led to the pres petitioner entered into an ag with the State of Punjab, Depar r setting up Mega Housing Proj y area in an area of 300 acres of l reafter, Change of Land U tegrated township at Mohali ove mpany on February 19, 2008 (A s.10,04,14,000/- by the State th supplementary agreement dated ed into between the parties in c 006 for setting up of the project ification under Section 4 dated acres of land situated in vil any out of the said 145.51 acres. -18), Khasra No.25/1 min (0-1 (5-7), Khasra No.3/1 (5-1), Kh ification under Section 6 was is of land belonging to the petiti of the 1894 Act was issued on J ns before passing of the Award der for acquisition of the ent dispute are as follows: greement on April 03, 2006 rtment of Housing and Urban ject in Mohali or Chandigarh land. se (for short "CLU") for er 141.15 acres was granted to Annexure P-5), upon payment hrough Chief Town Planner, d June 23, 2017 (Annexure continuation of the agreement over 145.51 acres of land. May 09, 2013 was issued for llage Dhol belonging to the The land is situated at Khasra 3), Khasra No.12/8/1 (1-18), hasra No.9/2 (2-0), Had-bast ssued on September 09, 2013 ioner in village Dhol. Notice July 15, 2024 (Annexure P-8) d in respect of 07 kanals 03

marlas of land b Collector, out of acres for which C

vi)

The from time to tim and February 20,

vii) The February 20, 202 extension fee of R

viii) government was notification unde

ix)

Adm preferred by the p

x)

Som proceedings notif filing CWP No.2 Punjab and othe

xi)

By a petitioner were in upon issuing of n the parties to mai

xii) The April 18, 2024 belonging to the petitioner comp f 1.981 acres. The land under a CLU has been granted to the peti time for implementation of the me vide office orders dated Febru , 2025. last extension was given by th 25 for a period of two years up Rs.25,000/- per acre, per year. challenge to the acquisition p made by the petitioner compan er Sections 4 and 6 in 2013. mittedly, no objection under Sec petitioner company. me of the land owners chall fied vide Section 6 notification 25843 of 2013 "Hargobind Si ers". an interim order, the acquisition nitially stayed. By an interim ord notice of motion, a Co-ordinate intain status-quo. writ petition was finally dispo whereby the notifications were pany by the Land Acquisition cquisition is a part of 145.51 itioner company. housing project was extended uary 01, 2023, June 05, 2024 he Government of Punjab on to December 31, 2025 for an proceedings initiated by the ny since the publication of the tion 5-A of the 1894 Act was lenged the said acquisition dated September 09, 2013 by ingh and others v. State of n proceedings against the writ der dated December 02, 2013, Bench of this Court directed osed of vide judgment dated e upheld and an Award was

directed to be pa 1894 Act, within

xiii) A Sp and others v. Sta Apex Court. Vid regard to determ acquisition proce

xiv) By v the acquisition p Khasra No.5//17 (1-18), Khasra attained finality.

3.

petitioner submit 2018. The resolu Law Tribunal (N management step Successful Reso dated July 15, 20 Acquisition Colle proceedings for t

4.

The that by the time 01, 2024, the da ssed by the Collector concerned n a period of two months from the pecial Leave Petition No. 29099 ate of Punjab and others" and de order dated July 29, 2024 a mination of the compensation. eedings was not entertained. virtue of order dated July 29, 20 proceedings qua land measurin min (0-18), Khasra No.25/1 m No.2/2 (5-7), Khasra No.3/1

Patwalia, learned counsel a ts that the petitioner company w ution plan was accepted by the NCLT) on June 01, 2021 and pped into the shoes of the prev lution Applicant. He further su 024 under Section 9 of the 1894 ector, the petitioner company lea the first time. petitioner vide reply dated Aug the notice under Section 9 was te for personal hearing fixed on d in terms of Section 11 of the e date of the judgment. 9 of 2024 "Hargobind Singh was filed before the Hon'ble notice was issued only with The appeal challenging the 24 passed by the Apex Court, ng 1.981 acres comprising of min (0-13), Khasra No.12/8/1 (5-1), Khasra No.9/2 (2-0), appearing on behalf of the went into resolution process in e Learned National Company on June 02, 2021, the new vious management being the ubmits that, when the notice 4 Act was issued by the Land arnt about the land acquisition gust 06, 2024 agitated the fact received by them on August n July 31, 2024 had gone by.

Therefore, the ac hearing was requ

5.

Section 6 notifica acquisition has extended the ori agreement dated December 31, 20 abuse of process land in question. would cause gre intent on the part to acquire the lan not be permitted

6.

Issu

7.

notice on behal accepts notice o Dawar, Advocate

8.

It is State-respondent finality, no griev ordinate Bench o acquisition proc months from the cquisition proceedings had to be uired to be given to the petitioner Patwalia vehemently argues t ation was issued by the State on been upheld upto the Hon'bl iginal agreement dated April 0 June 23, 2017 and thereafter gr 025 such conduct on the part of of law and the State cannot now . If such an illegal act on the p eat prejudice to the petitioner co t of the State is borne out by the nd in question for another private by the Court. ue Notice. Maninder Singh, Addl. Advoc f of respondent No.1-State. M on behalf of respondents No.2 e accepts notice on behalf of priv s submitted by learned Counse No.1 that since the acquisitio vance relating to the same issu of this Court vide judgment date eedings and directed an Awar date of the order. Compensatio e stayed and an opportunity of r company. that knowing fully well that September 09, 2013 and such e Supreme Court, the State 03, 2006 vide supplementary ranted several extensions upto the State was arbitrary and in w be permitted to acquire the part of the State is allowed, it ompany. The clear mala fide e fact that the State is seeking e builder and the same should cate General, Punjab, accepts Ms. Avin Sandhu, Advocate, 2 to 4-GMADA. Mr. Kunal vate respondent No.5. l appearing on behalf of the on proceedings have attained ue can be entertained. A Co-ed April 18, 2024, upheld the rd to be passed within two n for the land was directed to

be deposited fort users. Challenge Court in SLP No issue that remain

9.

Lear there was no fau project from tim which were unde

10.

No.5-private buil 700 acres in Sec Kanals 03 Marla acquired for dev fide intent on th No.5 as parts o proposed project petitioner comp acquisition by fil

11.

He r Gurdip Singh Ub it cannot be now that is sought to b which the object acquisition. The filing an objectio thwith before the Collector for r to the acquisition proceedings o.29099 of 2024 vide order date ned open was with regard to comp rned counsel appearing for respo ult on its part in extending the t me to time as GMADA was not er acquisition. Dawar, learned counsel appear lder submits that respondent No ctor-105 whereas the petitioner' as is situated in pockets. The afo veloping a township for housing e part of the government to acq f 07 Kanals land was situated t of the respondent No.5. Furthe any has neither started the ling objections under Section 5-A relies on a judgment of Apex Co Uban and others" reported in (20 urged on behalf of the petitione be acquired, is not necessary or tor is placed, it is a fit case fo only objection that the petition on under Section 5-A of the 1894 elease of the same to the land s was dismissed by the Apex ed July 29, 2024 and the only pensation. ondent-GMADA submits that time to complete the housing aware of the khasra numbers ring on behalf of respondent o.5 is the owner of more than s land admeasuring about 07 oresaid 700 acres of land was g people. There was no mala quire the land for respondent d right in the middle of the ermore, despite extension, the project nor challenged the A of the 1894 Act. ourt "Delhi Administration v. 000) 7 SCC 296 to submit that er that the land of the objector in the special fact situation in or omitting its land from the ner could have taken without 4 Act, was that the purpose for

which the land paragraphs 53 an reproduced herein "xxx

¶53cont not purp of th purp othe even spec case pers obje

¶54pers and conc whic so fa not f purp

Xxx"

¶12this Court dated and others" repo filed objections u by the doctrine o legal rights. Onc his claim and bei proceedings. He 25, 1996 "M/s S was acquired was not a public nd 54 of the judgment, in support n below: x Now objections under Section tention that (i) the purpose for w a public purpose, (ii) that eve pose, (ii) that even if the purpose he objector is not necessary, pose could be served by other la er land to which the objector m nt, even if this land is necessary cial fact-situation in which the e for omitting his land from the sonal to the land and Object ector. Now in the (ii) and (iii) typ sonal element which has to be p if objections have not been fi clusive proof that the said person ch were personal and which he far as Objection (i) is concerned filed, the affected party can pose was not a public purpose. " Dawar, also relies on a judgme February 03, 2022 "Desraj and orted in 2022(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 2 under Section 5-A of the 1894 A of acquiescence from complain e the vesting takes place, the lan ing a trespasser he loses the locu also relies on the decision of Sup Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. The S c one. Reliance is placed on t of his contentions, which are n 5-A, if filed, can relate to the which land is being acquired is en if the purpose is a public e is a public purpose, the land in the sense that the public and already proposed or some may refer, or (iii) that in any ry for the public purpose, the objector is placed, it is a fit e acquisition. Objection (ii) is tion (iii) is personal to the pes of objections, there is a leaded in Section 5-A inquiry iled, the notification must be n had "waived" all objections could have raised. However, d, even in case objections are challenge in Court that the ent of a Co-ordinate Bench of d others v. State of Haryana 298 to submit that having not Act, the petitioner is estopped ning about the violation of its nd owner has no title to assert us to challenge the acquisition preme Court dated September State of Haryana and ors.,"

reported in 1996 Section 6 of the entered into after bind the State G acquired.

13.

This the material on re

14.

Und May 09, 2013 a 2013. Admittedly of the petitioner was filed under S

15.

It is Corporate Insolv defence for no explanation has dated May 06, 20 years from issuan 2013.

16.

It is same notification the State has bee project from time writ petition adm extension has bee 6 (11) SCC 698, to submit that n e 1894 Act is notice to the wor r the publication of notification overnment or the beneficiary fo s Court has heard learned couns ecord. disputed facts are that the Section and the Section 6 notification w y, the previous management wa company till 2018. Despite the Section 5-A of the 1894 Act. trite law that change in manag vency Resolution Process (CIRP ot challenging the acquisition been provided or no sufficient 025 for condonation of delay in f nce of notifications under Sectio pertinent to note that the acqui ns have attained finality till the en extending the agreement for e to time. It is also true that the l measuring 07 Kanals 03 Marlas en granted for completion of the notice under Section 4 (1) and rld at large and any contract under Section 4 (1) does not or whose benefit the land was sel for the parties and perused n 4 notification was issued on was issued on September 09, as the management-in-control e aforesaid fact, no objection ement of the company due to P) cannot be resorted to as a n proceedings. No suitable t cause is shown in affidavit filing the writ petition after 12 ons 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act in isition proceedings relating to Supreme Court. It is true that r development of the housing land in question in the present is part of 111.76 acres where e project but the negligence on

the part of the Ch setting aside the a belated stage. Th and acquiescence

17.

On m in pockets adme acres (approxima cannot be held th or done with mal

18.

In th CWP No.9907 of

19.

Con

(DEEPAK SIBA

JUDGE

MAY 29, 2025 shalini

Whether speakin Whether reportab hief Administrator, PUDA, SAS acquisition proceedings which h he present writ petition is clearl e for which the petitioner cannot merits, this Court finds that since easures only 07 Kanals (approx ately) acquired by the State for r hat the acquisition of the petition la fide intent for extraneous reaso he light of aforesaid discussion, f 2025, is dismissed. nnected applications, if any, are a AL)

(LA

g/reasoned :

ble :

Nagar cannot be a ground for have attained finality, at such a ly barred by delay and laches be granted any relief. . e the petitioner's land situated ximately) as opposed to 700 respondent No.5. Therefore, it ner's land was either arbitrary ons. the instant writ petition being also accordingly disposed of. APITA BANERJI) JUDGE