AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present petition was filed in this Court impugning the
notification dated 21.4.1987 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, ''the 1894 Act''), which was followed by notification
dated 20.4.1988 issued under Section 6 of the Act. In the committee
constituted under the Chairmanship of Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula,
application filed by the petitioners under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the 2013 Act) claiming that
acquisition lapsed on account of the fact that compensation had not been
received fully and the petitioners are still in possession of the land, was
dismissed. This order has also been impugned in the petition.
In support of their plea, the petitioners have placed on record
(Annexures P-9 to P-16) various letters issued by Land Acquisition Officer,
Urban Estate Department, Panchkula bearing memo Nos.3615 to 3622 dated
22.7.2014 claiming that the petitioners having deposited back the amount of
compensation in terms of the order passed by the High Court on 21.5.2012
in CWP No.9518 of 2012, Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act do not apply in
the cases of the petitioners. The dates of the notifications under Sections 4
and 6 of the 1894 Act as mentioned in the letters are 11.2.2002 and
10.2.2003, respectively. The petitioners claimed that these letters have been
written by Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate Department, Panchkula
to the petitioners. They have also placed on record various letters issued by
the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra dated 4.8.2014 (Annexures P-17 to
P-23) giving no objection certificate giving reference to the letters noticed
above issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, for correction of mutation in
favour of the petitioners.
The definite stand by the respondents in the written statement is
that after the acquisition of land owned by the petitioners, compensation
was paid to them way back on 4.5.1990. Even enhanced compensation was
also paid subsequently in the year 1993-94. Possession of land was also
handed over to HUDA after the award was announced. Earlier the
petitioners filed CWP No. 9518 of 2012- Som Nath and others vs. State of
Haryana and others challenging the acquisition. The same was dismissed
with Rs. 50,000/- cost on 21.5.2012. Subsequently, the petitioners preferred
CWP No.10365 of 2015, which was disposed of on 26.5.2015. Claim made
in the aforesaid writ petition was that the acquisition has lapsed in view of
Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act. The impugned order dated 25.11.2015
(Annexure P-27) was passed in pursuance to order passed in the aforesaid
writ petition.
It was pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that
the documents (Annexures P-9 to P-16) are forged. These letters were never
issued by the office of Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate Department,
Panchkula. He referred to copy of the dispatch register produced along with
written statement showing that against the dispatch numbers as mentioned
in the letters produced by the petitioners, letters were addressed to some
other persons. He further pointed out that after the written statement was
filed in this Court in July, 2016, relevant pages from the original dispatch
register containing relevant dispatch numbers have been torn off.
Further submission is that even the letters (Annexures P-17 to
P-23) shown to have been written by Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra to
the petitioners dated 4.8.2014 are also fake, as no such letters were ever
written by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kurukshetra to the petitioners.
Against the dispatch numbers mentioned in the aforesaid letters,
communications were addressed to different persons and not to the
petitioners. On the basis of aforesaid forged letters and no objection
certificates the petitioners even got mutation entered in their names on
29.11.2014. However, when the petitioners applied to the authorities for
demarcation of land for handing over possession to them, the matter came to
the notice of the authorities that the land had already been acquired.
Mutation was got re-transferred in the name of HUDA on 6.2.2015.
He further submitted that the stand taken by the petitioners that
they had deposited the amount of compensation received by them with the
Land Acquisition Officer, is also wrong, as no amount was ever deposited
by the petitioners with the office. For the purpose, letter dated 12.5.2016
(Annexure P-31) vide memo number 1204 relied upon by the petitioners, is
also a fake document, which is signed by Devender Kumar, Kanoongo for
Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate Department, Panchkula. He is
involved in other criminal cases as well. He further submitted that when
issue regarding release of land in terms of the judgment of this Court in
CWP No.2289 of 2006 decided on 11.10.2007 quashing the acquisition was
being considered, issue was raised by some of the landowners regarding
harassment by the staff. Enquiry was conducted. During that enquiry, it was
found that certain letters had been forged and pages from dispatch register
were missing, which included the letters and dispatch register referred to
above. Four officials were held guilty. It was informed that some of these
officers/officials were found guilty in other frauds also. Though enquiry
report was submitted in August, 2017, however, the matter is still pending
consideration with the higher authorities.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
he may be permitted to withdraw the petition.
Considering the conduct of the petitioners where forged
documents have been placed on record, which may have been prepared in
connivance with the officials of the Urban Estate Department or HUDA, the
petitioners are permitted to withdraw the petition. However, the same shall
be subject to cost of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The cost be deposited with the Registry of
this Court within a period of three months.
Process of enquiry in HUDA was initiated in April, 2017. The
report was submitted in August, 2017 and the matter is pending at the level
of Director, Urban Estate Department.
The Director, Urban Estate Department is directed to take final
decision in the matter within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
this order and take strict legal action against the officer/official found guilty
in the enquiry.
As the case relates to the forging of documents of record, which
may includes letters, notings and removal of pages from the dispatch
register, let criminal case be got registered by Departments/Offices from
where the forged documents have been prepared and pages have been
removed from dispatch register. There are certain documents available in
the file, which contains the enquiry report, as conducted by the
Administrator, HUDA, which apparently are forged. Those shall also be
taken into consideration while holding enquiry and/or getting FIR
registered.
The writ petition is disposed of.
For the purpose of compliance, the matter may be listed before
this Court on 30.10.2017.