Neutral Citation No:=2006:PHHC:004560-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

C.W.P. No. 17442 of 2006(O&M)

Date of Decision: Nov. 7,2006

Desh Raj & Others .................................... Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ...................... Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav

Present: Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi,
Mr. A.P.Setia and Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocates
for the petitioners.

Mr. H.S.Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana,

for the Caveator.
...

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.
The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 28.9.2006 passed by
the High Powered Committee (Annexure P-16) by which the prayer of the petitioners
for release of their lands from acquisition has been declined.
Briefly the facts of the case are that the State of Haryana issued a
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act') on
24.8.2000 intending to acquire lands situated in villages Tigra, Nangli, Amarpur,
Bhajapur etc. for the purpose of development of Sector- 57, Gurgaon for residential,
commercial and institutional purposes. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
issued on 22.8.2001. The petitioners challenged the issuance of these notifications by
filing a writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 10845 of 2004. It was averred that the
objections have not been decided by giving a proper hearing to the petitioners. In this
writ petition the Advocate General, Haryana, gave an undertaking before the Court that
the State of Haryana would constitute a High Powered Committee which would
examine the case of each land-owner whose land had been acquired by the
aforementioned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. Accordingly, the case
of the petitioners was considered by the High Powered Committee which rejected the
case of the petitioners for release of their lands vide order-Annexure P-16 dated
28.9.2006. It is this order that is under challenge in the present writ petition.
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 24-11-2023 20:47:55 :::
 Neutral Citation No:=2006:PHHC:004560-DB

C.W.P. No. 17442 of 2006(O&M) [ 2 ]

Mr. Aggarwal, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, has

primarily argued that the petitioners have been discriminated against
inasmuch as M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. have been granted
license for colonising an area measuring 13.878 acres in village Samaspur,
Distt. Gurgaon (Sector-57, Gurgaon) but the petitioners have not been dealt
with at par. It has been averred that in order to give license to M/s
Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. the State of Haryana has in fact given land
in exchange to the aforementioned builders so that they can have one
compact pocket which could facilitate the granting of the license. It has also
been argued that similar exchange of land has also been done by the State of
Haryana with M/s OMAXE Housing & Developers Ltd. and M/s Ajay
Agarwal also and, thus, the Government has adopted a pick and choose
policy as it has not acquired the lands of the aforementioned private
Developers but has acquired the petitioners' lands. On the basis of the
aforementioned facts, counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that
the lands of the petitioners are liable to be released from acquisition.
The State of Haryana has filed a caveat in this petition and Shri
H.S.Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana, has appeared on behalf of
the State. Learned Advocate General has categorically stated that the State
Government has not given any land in exchange with the land belonging to
M/s Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd. or M/s OMAXE Housing &
Developers Ltd. or M/s Ajay Aggarwal and, therefore, the argument on
behalf of the petitioners that the State Government has tried to help the
aforementioned builders by granting them license is absolutely unfounded.
It has been argued by the Advocate General that the lands of the petitioners
are in two pockets and the size of both the pockets is less then 10 acres each
and there was no way by which the lands of the petitioners could be
exempted from acquisition. Learned counsel has argued that as per the
Zoning Regulation No. XIII (2) of the Town & Country Planning
Department which has duly been notified by the Haryana Government
Gazettee (Extraordinary) on 8.1.1996 the minimum area under a Group
Housing Scheme has to be 5 acres if it forms part of a licenced colony and
if the area is developed independently it has to be 10 acres in one compact
block and as the petitioners do not have 10 acres in one compact block at
one place, therefore, the lands of the petitioners cannot be released from

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 24-11-2023 20:47:55 :::
 Neutral Citation No:=2006:PHHC:004560-DB

C.W.P. No. 17442 of 2006(O&M) [ 3 ]

acquisition. Learned counsel has also placed strong reliance on the

observations made by the High Powered Committee in its order-Annexure
P-16 wherein it has been held that the lands of the petitioners cannot be
released as it affects a part of a 30 meter wide green belt, a 60 meter wide
peripheral sector road, 12 plots of one kanal category, 109 plots of 10 marla
category, 13 plots of 8 marla category and also obstructs the continuation of
the 10 meter wide internal roads planned in the sector.
From a perusal of the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the
case of the petitioners is not at par with either M/s Countrywide Promoters
Pvt. Ltd. or M/s OMAXE Housing & Developers Pvt. Ltd. or M/s Ajay
Agarwal. The State of Haryana did not exchange any of its land with the
lands of the aforementioned builders so as to make their lands in one
homogenous compact block. Apart from the above, as per the site-plan
which has been placed before us the lands of the petitioners are in two
separate pockets away from each other and none of the pockets is of a size
of more than 10 acres.
A perusal of the site-plan also shows that there are numerous
internal and sector roads that are proposed to be constructed through the
lands of the petitioners. Not only this, even a 60 meter wide road is
proposed to go through the land of the petitioners and, thus, in our
considered opinion the land of the petitioners was definitely required for the
purpose of acquisition and the same cannot be released from acquisition.
We are also of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not been
discriminated against by the respondents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. v. State of Haryana (SC) 2005 AIR (SC) 565 has
held as under:-
“13. It is trite law that not only land but also structure on land
can be acquired under the Act. As to whether in a given set of
circumstances certain land should be exempted from
acquisition only for the reason that some construction had
been carried out, is a matter of policy, and not of law. If after
considering all the circumstances, the State Government has
taken the view that exemption of the lands of the appellants
would render askew the development scheme of the industrial
estate, it is not possible for the High Court or this Court to

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 24-11-2023 20:47:55 :::
 Neutral Citation No:=2006:PHHC:004560-DB

C.W.P. No. 17442 of 2006(O&M) [ 4 ]

interfere with the satisfaction of the concerned authorities. We

see no ground on which the appellants could have maintained
that their lands should be exempted from acquisition. Even if
three of the parties had been wrongly exempted from
acquisition, that gives no right to the appellants to seek similar
relief.”
A perusal of the impugned order passed by the High Powered
Committee clearly shows that not only the land of the petitioners is not in a
compact block but the release of their land would affect the construction of
green belt, a 60 meter wide peripheral sector road and hundreds of plots
which have been planned to be carved out through this land.
Still further, the petitioners have not been able to point out any
illegality either in the issuance of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of
the Act or in the award which was passed as far back as on 21.7.2003.
The petitioners have no statutory right to have their lands
released from acquisition and, hence, a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued.
In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and
the same is dismissed.

( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )
JUDGE

7.11.2006 ( NIRMAL YADAV )

rupi JUDGE

Neutral Citation No:=2006:PHHC:004560-DB

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 24-11-2023 20:47:55 :::