Bhoop Singh vs The State of Haryana

G.S. Singhvi, J.—This petition has been filed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash to notifications dated 10.9.1992 and 3.9.1993 issued by the Government of Haryana under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act).

The case set up by the petitioner is that he purchased piece of land measuring 2 kanals in village Rudh, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari from one Hari Singh son of Ram Sarup. Two sale deeds were executed on 26.11.1991 and 2.12.1992. The petitioner further says that he is an ex-serviceman and after discharge from Indian Army he got himself employed in Uni-product India Limited. However, when the Government of Haryana released self employment scheme he purchased the aforesaid land for setting up an industry and engaged four to five persons for the purpose of execution of his project. The petitioner further says that he started an industry of stone cutting in which the Marbal Stone, Dholpur Stone, Kota Stone and Kund Stone are being cut. For this purpose, he has spend a sum of Rs. 4 lacs and has raised boundary walls over the plot in dispute. He further says that his industry exists near Tanu Restaurant. It has further been alleged by the petitioner that vide notification dated 10.9.1992 issued u/s 4 of the Act the Government of Haryana proposed acquisition of various parcels of land including the land of the petitioner for setting up of the growth centre at Bawal in District Rewari. This notification was not published in accordance with section 4 of the Act and without following the procedure prescribed under the law the Government issued notification dated 6.9.1993 u/s 6 of the Act.

The impugned notifications have been questioned by the petitioner on the ground of violation of the provisions of the Act and hostile discrimination. The petitioner says that before issuing notification u/s 6 of the Act the respondent-Government did not consider the objections submitted by the petitioner. It has also been alleged by the petitioner that the State Government has exempted various parcels of land belonging to influential persons of the village and there is no reason or justification for not leaving out his land because he has set up an industry under the scheme devised by the Government for self-employment.

Respondents 1 and 2 have contested the writ petition by stating that the growth centre proposed to be set up at Bawal is one amongst 61 such growth centres planned to be set up throughout the country. The main object of the scheme of growth centre is to create industrial township for promoting basic industrial infrastructure, housing colonies, commercial sites and other basic amenities like hospital, schools, college etc. Each such growth centre will be provided with Rs. Ten crores by the Government of India. For setting up of the growth centre, acquisition of land upto 400-800 hectares is essential and keeping in view the objective of the scheme, the Government of Haryana decided to acquire the land. Consequently, notification Annexure P7 came to be issued on 10.9.1992 for acquiring about 1000 acres of land falling in Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari. In regard to the petitioner''s land, the respondents have pleaded that the land did not vest in the petitioner upto the date of the publication of the notification dated 10.9.1992 and there is a serious dispute regarding the ownership of the land. Even the mutation was not allowed in favour of the petitioner. The respondents have then stated that the land in dispute is under agricultural cultivation and the crops of sarson, barley, wheat etc. have been sown after the issuance of the notification and if any construction had been made on this land after the issue of notification dated 10.9.1992 the petitioner cannot make any capital out of it. The respondents have relied upon Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 and Khasra girdawaris of the years 1989-90 to 1993-94. On the issue of the publication of the notification, the respondents have pleaded that the notification dated 10.9.1992 was published in the gazette as well as two newspapers i.e. Veer Arjun (Hindi) and National Herald (English). The petitioner filed his objections on 14.1.1993 which were duly considered and were rejected after giving personal hearing to him. The respondents have denied hostile discrimination between the petitioner and others by stating that each case for exemption from acquisition was examined on its own merits and the competent authority granted exemption after due consideration of each case on merits.

In its separate reply, respondent 3 has pleaded that no factory/industry exists on the disputed spot and no work is being carried on. Respondent 3 has also stated that land of the persons which did not fall under the planning of the scheme has been exempted and no discrimination has been practised.

In his replication, the petitioner has reiterated his stand and has asserted that his industry exists on the site in dispute.

The principal argument advanced by Shri Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Government has acted in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner by leaving out the land of some influential persons while denying exemption to the petitioner even though he has set up a small industrial unit under the self-employment scheme. Shri Yadav argued that a number of parcels of land on which constructions have been raised and which are adjacent to the National Highway No.8 have been left out of the acquisition because such lands belong to influential persons but in the case of petitioner the respondents have intentionally avoided grant of exemption.

During the course of hearing, learned Assistant Advocate General produced before us a detailed shajra plan showing killa numbers in villages Rudh, Chirar, Jalalpur, Suthana and Sithani in Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari where the land is being acquired under the impugned notifications.

A look at this plan as well as the site plan produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with C.M. No. 440 of 1995 unmistakably shows that a large number of parcels of land have been left out of the acquisition. Annexures P1 and P1-A further show that the land of the petitioner is also adjacent to the National Highway No.8. Annexures P2 to P8 are the photographs produced by the petitioner and a look at these photographs shows the existence of boundary wall and some structure. On a small portion there exists a plate-form with two rails and a machine without any electric connection. These photographs do not show the existence of any industry over the site in question.

The material which has been placed before us does not conclusively prove that the petitioner has set up any industrial unit over the land allegedly purchased by him vide sale deeds dated 26.11.1991 and 2.12.1992. The structure which exists on the land cannot satisfy any reasonable person that any industrial activity is being carried on the site. We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the submission of Shri Yadav that the petitioner has set up a small industrial unit under the scheme of self-employment.

That apart, we find that the petitioner has purchased a portion of land in dispute after the publication of the notification dated 10.9.1992. It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that the petitioner had made the purchase of land fully knowing the fact that the Government has already initiated proceedings for acquisition of the land. If after 10.9.1992 the petitioner has raised any structure or has made any endeavour to show that he has set up an industrial unit, the same will have to be ignored because the petitioner cannot take advantage of his fault of raising construction over a piece of land which was under acquisition.

Argument of learned counsel regarding discrimination, no doubt, appears to be attractive in the first instance but a close Consideration of the same leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner cannot get any benefit on account of a wrong committed by the respondents. The petitioner has made a statement in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that some parcels of the land have been left out from the acquisition or exemption has been granted from acquisition of the land of some land owners. Respondents 1 and 2 have not offered any plausible explanation for these exemptions. Respondent 3 has also not submitted any cogent for leaving out some parcels of the land from acquisition. To us, this appears to be a case of an attempt to favour some individuals. However, that by itself cannot be a ground for nullifying the acquisition proceedings which are otherwise in public interest and for achieving a public purpose. The only appropriate method of removing discrimination in such like cases will be to direct the respondents to take effective steps for acquisition/re-acquisition of the left out parcels of the land. Such acquisition/re-acquisition would be conducive to the over-all scheme and would be in the larger public interest. This course will be completely in accordance with the decision of Supreme Court in Chandra Bansi Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, wherein their Lordships have held as under: -

"Where a large tract of land belonging to several persons was sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of houses and allotment to the people belonging to the low and middle income groups by issuing notification u/s 4 but about six years thereafter the land belonging to a particular family was released by the Government by way of a pure and simple favouritism. The release would be bad and honest. Consequently, the entire notification issued u/s 4 initially would be deemed to be valid and the land released to the family would form part of the acquisition as it initially did. The release being a separate and subsequent act of the Collector, could not invalidate the entire notification but would only invalidate the portion released with the result that the original notification would be restored to its position."

In view of the above, we do not find any substance in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed subject to the directions that the respondents should immediately initiate action for acquisition/re-acquisition of the lands exempted from acquisition/released from acquisition by taking proceedings under the Act. The appropriate steps should be taken by the respondents within five months and a report should be submitted to this Court by December 12, 1995 on which date the case shall be listed before the Court.

Before parting with the case, we consider it necessary to observe that from the site plan produced by the respondents during the course of hearing it appears that many parcels of land which are adjacent to the National Highway No. 8 have been left out from acquisition or have been granted exemption and some constructions have been raised on them. While deciding Gurdial Shaym Lal Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1995 3 P.L.R.1, this Court had directed the Government of Haryana to take steps for removing unauthorised construction from both sides of the National Highways throughout the State. We wish to once again emphasise that all those constructions which have come into existence around the National Highways and which contravenes the provisions of the National Highways Act as well as the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (an Act which has been adopted by the State of Haryana) must be removed by the concerned authorities who must also see that in future no such constructions are allowed on both the sides of the National Highways. It should be made clear to all the officials of the Government that any lapse on their part would make them personally responsible for appropriate punitive action.