- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt. Bachni Devi And Others Petitioners v. State Of Haryana And Another S
Summary of Opinion — Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners own vacant land which they had agreed to develop in collaboration with M/s Goel Buildwell Private Limited. They challenged a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 12.9.2008 (P3) proposing acquisition of 25 acres 7 kanal 9 marla for a public purpose (extension of police lines, Kaithal) and a subsequent declaration dated 5.6.2009 (P4) finally ordering acquisition of that land. The petitioners contend that after issuance of a Section 6 declaration, respondent authorities released 123 kanal 3 marla of land to certain owners by order dated 15.9.2010 (P7) but did not grant similar relief to the petitioners. The petitioners' application for a licence under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 was filed on 5.7.2007 and remains pending. On inquiry by the Court, counsel for the petitioners admitted that the petitioners did not file any objection under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether petitioners who did not file objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act can maintain a writ petition to challenge the Section 4 notification (P3) and the Section 6/declared acquisition (P4).
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to parity relief because land was released to other owners by order dated 15.9.2010 (P7).
- Whether delay in approaching the Court affects the maintainability of the petition.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners challenged the Section 4 notification (P3) and the subsequent declaration (P4) ordering acquisition of their land.
- They contended that after issuance of the Section 6 declaration, respondent authorities released 123 kanal 3 marla of land to certain owners (order dated 15.9.2010 (P7)), and that similar relief was not extended to the petitioners without justification.
- The petitioners relied on the order dated 15.9.2010 (P7) to show differential treatment.
- The petitioners had a collaboration agreement to develop the land and an earlier application for development licence was pending before the relevant authority.
Respondents' Arguments
- It was noted (and the respondents' counsel advanced) that some land released by order P7 was under construction prior to the Section 4 notification, a distinction relied upon to justify different treatment.
- Respondents' counsel also contended (as recorded by the Court) that a Division Bench judgment in B.R. Gupta's case had quashed the entire Section 5-A proceedings in other matters, and that even where objections had been filed the position might not have differed.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban, AIR 1999 SC 3822 | The principle that owners or persons interested who did not file objections under Section 5-A are to be taken as having no objection to the Section 4 notification and therefore cannot later contend that Section 5-A inquiry was bad so as to invalidate the Section 6 declaration. | The Court applied this ratio to hold that because the petitioners did not file objections under Section 5-A, they had acquiesced to the Section 4 notification and could not maintain the writ; accordingly the Section 6 declaration must be deemed in force as regards them. |
| Abhey Ram's case (three Judge Bench) | The view of the three Judge Bench that those who have not filed objections under Section 5-A could not be allowed to contend that the Section 5-A inquiry was bad. | The Court agreed with this principle and relied on it to conclude that petitioners who did not file objections cannot challenge the Section 5-A process to nullify the acquisition. |
| B.R. Gupta's case (Division Bench dated 18.11.1988) | Referenced by respondents' counsel as authority that Section 5-A proceedings had been quashed in some matters (as argued to the Court). | The Court rejected the respondents' contention that quashing in other cases would affect petitioners who did not file objections; it held that quashing in other matters does not assist those who failed to object. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by first noting uncontested factual distinctions: the petitioners' land was lying vacant, whereas the land released under order P7 was under construction and pre-existed the Section 4 notification. The petitioners admitted they had not filed objections under Section 5-A. The Court reasoned that failure to file objections under Section 5-A amounted to acquiescence to the Section 4 notification. Relying on the ratio in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and the three-Judge-Bench view in Abhey Ram's case, the Court held that persons who did not file objections cannot later contend that Section 5-A proceedings were bad so as to invalidate the Section 6 declaration. The Court also rejected the contention (attributed to respondents' counsel) that quashing of Section 5-A proceedings in other cases (B.R. Gupta's case) would alter the position for petitioners who had not objected. The Court further observed that the petitioners had approached the Court late. On these bases the Court concluded that no relief could be granted to the petitioners.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The writ petition is DISMISSED.
Implications:
- The petitioners are not granted relief and the acquisition proceedings (the Section 4 notification and Section 6 declaration) stand as regards them, given their failure to file objections under Section 5-A.
- The Court treated the petitioners' failure to object as acquiescence to the Section 4 notification, applying the Supreme Court ratio cited in the opinion.
- This decision addresses the parties before the Court and does not purport to establish a broader new precedent beyond applying the cited authorities; the opinion does not discuss broader implications beyond the direct effect on the parties.
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
It is apparent from the record and not disputed before us that the petitioners' land, in dispute, is lying vacant. They have entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s Goel Buildwell Private Limited to develop that land in a colony. Their challenge is to a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 12.9.2008 (P3), proposing to acquire 25 acres 7 kanal 9 marla of land, for a public purpose, namely, for construction of building - extension of police lines, Kaithal. Further challenge has been made to a declaration, issued on 5.6.2009 (P4), finally ordering acquisition of the above said land.
It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that after issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Act, the respondent-authorities have released land to the extent of 123 kanal 3 marla and the same relief was not granted to the petitioners without any justification. To support the above said contention, reference has been made to an order dated 15.9.2010 (P7). On asking of the Court, counsel for the petitioners very fairly state that the petitioners have not filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. It is further mentioned that their application, to get licence, to develop a colony as per the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 was filed on 5.7.2007, is still pending consideration.
After hearing counsel for the petitioners, we feel that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioners' land is lying vacant, whereas, the land released vide order dated 15.9.2010 (P7) was under construction, which was in existence before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Furthermore, petitioners have failed to show that the owners, in whose favour, land was released, had not filed objection under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners have failed to file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act, it would mean that they have acquiesced to the proposed acquisition. In terms of ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban, AIR 1999 SC 3822 this writ petition is not maintainable. In that case, it was observed as under:-
“8. In connection with owners or persons interested who have not filed objections under Section 5A, in principle, it must be accepted that they had no objection to Section 4 notification operating in respect of their property. On the other hand, in respect of those who filed objections, they might have locus standi to contend that Section 5A inquiry was not conducted properly. We, therefore, agree in principle with the view of the three Judge Bench in Abhey Ram's case that whose who have not filed objections under Section 5A, could not be allowed to contend that the Section 5A inquiry was bad and that consequently Section 6 declaration must be struck down and that then the section 4 notification would lapse. If, therefore, no objections were filed by the respondents, logically the Section 6 declaration must be deemed to be in force so far as they are concerned.
9. But learned senior counsel for the respondents contends that the judgment of the Division Bench dated 18.11.1988 in B.R Gupta's case had quashed the entire Section 5A proceedings and that even in case the respondents had filed objections, the position would not have been different. We cannot accept this contention. We are of the view that in respect of those who did not object to the Section 4(1) notification by filing objections under Section 5A, the said notification must be treated as being in force. The writ petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that in some other cases, the notification was quashed and that such quashing would also enure to their benefit.
The petitioners have approached this Court very late.
In view of facts mentioned, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Alert