V.K. Madan vs State of Haryana

M.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

The petitioner, who appears to be a colonizer, purchased 10 acres of land, in one block, in district Gurgaon in revenue estates of villages Gurgaon and Hidayatpur Chawni. Somewhere in 1966, the Gurgaon Improvement Trust took stock of that land and made effort to bring it within a scheme. The scheme was later dropped. The petitioner taking aid of the town planning scheme of the area started developing his land into a colony and allegedly took some steps towards preparing a layout and demarking residential and commercial plots. Then again in 1969 the Improvement Trust, framed a development scheme but gave it up. He then made an application to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Harayana, seeking exemption under section 23 read with section 9 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, so that he could go ahead with the colonizing prospects and the said officer granted him exemption but subject to certain conditions, one of which was to pay Rs. 3 lakh to the Municipal Committee, Gurgaon. Later that order was modified that he could settle the issue with the Municipal Committee. The petitioner then revised the layout plan which was approved by the Director as communicated to him on January 25, 1982.

In the meantime, the Haryana Government took steps to acquire the land and issued notifications on April 14, 1981, for the purpose, referring therein the use of provisions of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The avowed public purpose was the construction of Police Station City Gurgaon. However, on the representation of the petitioner to the Chief Minister, Haryana, the matter was considered by a high level meeting. The suggestion that the Police Station could be constructed in another sector was received favourably and thus the notifications for acquisition were withdrawn on January 12, 1982. During this while, allegedly the petitioner sold a number of plots and even agreed to sell other plots to prospective buyers. But again the State Government issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure P.10) on March 4,1983, invoking as well the urgency provisions of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, giving a goby to the applicability of section 5A of the said Act. The said notification is subject matter of challenge in this petition primarily on the ground that it is mala fide, the State having abandoned the acquisition of the land; the land was neither waste nor unarable; the Government could not change its position, the action was arbitrary and finally that the provisions of section 17 of the Act could not be invoked in view of the nature of the purpose for which the land was being acquired.

The Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, on behalf of the State of Haryana, has countered the allegations of the petitioner and has denied the action being mala fide or the state changing its views for anything but administrative reasons or that the action was arbitrary. With regard to the applicability of section 17, it was countered that keeping in view the urgency for the construction of a building of Police Station City Gurgaon, the provisions of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act had been justifiably invoked and that there was a dire need for the purpose.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that if his petition on the strength of Dera Phalauli v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1979 S.C. 1594, The State of Punjab and another v. Gurdial Singh and others, AIR 1980 S.C. 319, Shiv Dayal and another v. The State of Punjab, 1982 PLJ 11 : 1984 R.R.R. 224 and Puran Singh v. The State of Haryana and another, 1982 PLJ 306, is allowed, then the other points raised by him need not be gone into. The contention raised is that the avowed public purpose, as was in the earlier effort to acquire the land in dispute, is for the construction of a police station; a purpose which cannot be accomplished in a day or is not of such a nature that it could not brook delay during which objections under section 5A could not be decided and heard. The nature of the acquisition is an important part in determining this factor where the provisions of section17 have been employed by the State mechanically without ex facie disclosing what were the reasons for the urgency. The afore quoted precedents lend considerable support to the view canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Court is entitled to discern the public purpose and if it can speak for itself the Court is entitled to draw proper inferences. As is plain, the first effort to acquire the land in dispute was abandoned and same remains the avowed public purpose. The State Government at that time was persuaded not to acquire the land in dispute for the purpose. Similarly, it cannot be ruled out that it can still be brought to its original view despite the notification Annexure P.10 issued again for the purpose. No one can conceive that a Police Station can be built in a day. It is a time consuming process. Its initiation is not something which cannot grant the petitioner an opportunity to raise objections under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel for the State, however, canvasses the view that but for the stay order issued by this Court the State might have gone ahead to take possession of the land in dispute and achieve its object. Whatever be the reason, the land has not been put to use as was sought urgently.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition needs to be allowed only to the extent so far as the impugned notification Annexure P.10 relates to section 17. The same is quashed as also that portion in which it is directed that the provisions of section 5A of the Act shall not apply with regard to the acquisition. So far as notification Annexure P.10 relates to section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the same survives. It is consequentially directed that the petitioner shall, within three weeks from today, file objections under section 5A of the Act to the State of Haryana through the Collector, Gurgaon, as ex facie no Land Acquisition Officer for this particular acquisition seems to have been appointed. The objections if filed be considered in accordance with law and then further proceedings taken. With these directions, this petition is allowed. No costs.