Smt. Phul Wati and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

Jasbir Singh, J.—This order will dispose of CWP Nos. 2672 and 2677 of 2011, involving similar question of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from CWP No. 2672 of 2011.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash notifications dated 25.4.2008 and 22.4.2009, respectively, issued under Sections 4 and 6, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), to acquire a vast tract of land, falling in seven villages, including a piece of land measuring about 16 kanal owned by the Petitioners. The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, to set up an industrial modern township.

To oppose the acquisition, it has been stated that the Petitioners have constructed three rooms therein and further the adjoining land which is lying vacant has been released in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

It is not in dispute that at an earlier point of time, this very acquisition came up for consideration before this Court in CWP No. 6166 of 2010 titled as Brahm Dutt and Ors. v. State of Haryana and others and vide order dated 3.2.2011, a bunch of 38 writ petitions was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court. In the case of Brahm Dutt (supra), many land owners prayed that like Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in this case, their vacant land be also released, besides their residential houses. After detailed hearing, it was ordered that where ever construction of a land owner is admitted by the Respondent-authorities on the land subject to acquisition and recommendation was also made for release of the land under construction, by the Land Acquisition Collector, to that extent, acquisition shall be deemed to have been quashed. However, the order was made subject to a condition that such land shall not fall in the infrastructural facilities such as widening of the road etc.

We feel that this case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment, mentioned above. The present case is rather worst. Perusal of the photographs indicates that scanty construction in the shape of three rooms at different places has been raised. It appears that the same was done with a view to frustrate any future acquisition of land. It is also on record that the land falls in the controlled area and there is nothing to show that the construction was raised after getting permission from the competent authority. So far as Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, they stand at different footing. It appears that their land was exempted in terms of the Policy of the State Government dated 26.10.2007. The Petitioners have come to this Court at a very belated stage. No case is made out for interference.

Dismissed.