Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALDEV SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BALDEV SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA & Ors - CWP-17460-2005 [2005] RD-P&H 258 (12 December 2005)

CWP No.17460 of 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP No.17460 of 2005

Date of decision: 9.12.2005

Baldev Singh ... Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others ..Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

Present: Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

J.S. Khehar, J.

The respondents issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') on 19.12.2002 (Annexure P1) depicting their tentative decision to acquire 416.02 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Khairpur and 100.05 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Vaidwala. The aforesaid land was sought to be acquired for setting up residential and commercial sectors 19 and 20 at Sirsa. The land of the petitioner situated in village Khairpur was depicted in the aforesaid notification. Consequently, the petitioner submitted objections under section 5A of the Act seeking exemption of their land from the acquisition proceedings. The factual position relied CWP No.17460 of 2005 2

upon by the petitioner for exemption of his land expressed in the objections filed by him is being extracted hereunder:- "2. That the petitioners are agriculturists and are entirely depending on the earnings of the agricultural crop. There is no other source of income with the petitioners except this source only.

3. That the aforesaid area is nearby to the Industrial Area located near Main Hissar-Sirsa Road. There are so many industries located in the area. There are nearby GTM, Garg Motors. Further this area is very adjacent to Bansal Hospital, two marriage palaces, residential colonies. Further this area is just adjacent with HUDA Sector 20 Part-II Sirsa. There are so many trees standing in the area of the petitioner and the petitioners are entitled to recover the amounts for the same.

4. That the proposed acquired area is not less than Rs.4,000/- per square yard on the spot as per market value of the aforesaid land. Further it is quite possible to increase the rates of this area. In case of acquisition of the aforesaid area, the petitioners are entitled to receive the aforesaid rate from the Government along with other benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act.

CWP No.17460 of 2005 3

5. That the aforesaid area is well within the Municipal Limits of Sirsa (Haryana). Further the petitioners have installed a tube-well in the area.

6. That another area is available for the acquisition for HUDA department."

A perusal of the reasons expressed in the objections filed by the petitioner reveals that the land owned by the petitioner, which was subject matter of acquisition proceedings, was being used by the petitioner for agricultural purposes alone.

The respondents did not find enough justification in the objections filed by the petitioner, so as to release his land from the acquisition proceedings. Accordingly, the respondents issued a declaration under section 6 of the Act on 18.12.2003 (Annexure P3) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the notifications dated 19.12.2002 and 18.12.2002 issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively.

The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, was that the land in question is the basis of the source of income of the petitioner and in case the petitioner's land is acquired, they would be deprived of their livelihood. It is not possible for us to accept the instant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

CWP No.17460 of 2005 4

Consequent upon acquisition of his land, the petitioner will be awarded compensation along with other statutory financial benefits. It would not be difficult for the petitioner to purchase similar land in the vicinity and continue to pursue agriculture thereon as hithertofore. Additionally, the instant contention cannot be a valid justification for exemption of land from acquisition proceedings. In case the instant submission is accepted, it would be impossible to acquire agricultural land under the provisions of the Act. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner resides in the land itself. In order to substantiate the instant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he invited our attention to the order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, wherein it stands acknowledged that there are two rooms measuring 33 square yards on the land of the petitioner, which is subject of acquisition. The factum of availability of two constructed rooms on the acquired land cannot be made a basis by the petitioner for release of his land from acquisition proceedings, for the simple reason that the petitioner did not raise the instant plea in the objections filed under section 5A of the Act. Even otherwise, it is not possible for us to accept the instant contention. A perusal of the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector CWP No.17460 of 2005 5

(Annexure P5) reveals that the two rooms constructed on the agricultural land of the petitioner have `C' class construction. It is, therefore, reasonable to infer that the two rooms constructed on the land of the petitioner are in the nature of fodder rooms or rooms for storage of agricultural implements and not utilised for residential purposes. Such a construction also cannot be a valid basis for exemption of land from acquisition proceedings. In view of the above, we find no merit in the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

No other contention, besides those noticed hereinabove, were advanced during the course of hearing.

Dismissed.

( J.S. Khehar )

Judge

(S.N.Aggarwal)

9.12.2005 Judge

vig

CWP No.17460 of 2005 6


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.