RAM BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Based upon factual background and questions of law, these petitions were heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts leading to the filing of these petitions are being usefully noticed herein-after.

(2.) Petitioners No. 1 to 48 in CWP No. 14452 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the owners) were the owners of land measuring 85.83 acres situated in revenue estate of village Pehrawar, Garhi Bohar and Khedi Sadh in Sector 27, District Rohtak. Jamabandis for the year 1998-99 and 2000-2001 pertaining to the aforesaid villages do reflect their ownership at the relevant time. Petitioners No. 2 to 73 in CWP No. 14451 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the owners) were the owners of land measuring 84.04 acres situated in revenue Estate of village Garhi Bohar and Khedi Sadh in Sector 27, District Rohtak. Similarly, Petitioners No. 1 to 205 in CWP No. 14453 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the owners) were the owners of land measuring 11304 acres situated in revenue Estate of village Garhi Bohar and Khedi Sadh in Sector 27. District Rohtak. State of Haryana issued Notification No. LAC(F)-20()2/NTLA./92 dated 11th April, 2002 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "1894 Act") proposing to acquire the lands described here-in-above alongwith other tracts of land in the aforementioned villages for alleged public purpose, namely, development of residential/commercial Sectors 27-28. District Rohtak. This acquisition was notified, in view of provisions of Section 14 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act. 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1977 Act"). It is alleged that due to inadequate publicity to the acquisition, the notification having been published in newspaper having no wide circulation, all the owners of the land could not know about the proposed acquisition. Some of the land owners, including some of the petitioners, however, objected to the acquisition by filing their objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act when they came to know about the proposed acquisition. It is however, common case of the petitioners that their objections under Section 5-A. were not disposed of nor they were granted any further opportunity of being heard. It is alleged that without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 5-A. the Collector proceeded with the acquisition. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 8th April. 2003. The land owners/petitioners, in the meanwhile, entered into collaboration agreement with M/s Uddar (lagan Properties Private Limited arrayed as petitioner No. 49 in CWP No. 14452/2010. petitioner No. 1 in CWP No. 14451 of 2010 and petitioner No. 206 in CWP No. 14453 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") incorporated under the Companies Act. 1956 for development of the area for group housing and commercial purposes on 2nd March. 2005. Under the collaboration agreement, the owners were to contribute their land and the Company to provide financial and technical help for the development of the land. The Company was also authorised to obtain necessary licence for establishment of the Housing Colony and commercial area from the competent authority. Some of the land owners were issued notices under Section 9 of the 1894 Act asking them to submit their claims. It is alleged that these notices were not served upon all the owners. Such of the owners who were served with notice under Section 9 filed their objections against the acquisition of the land and also communicated that they have already entered into collaboration agreement with the Company for development of Group Housing/Residential Colony.

(3.) Government of Haryana framed a policy with regard to grant of licence under the provisions of Haryana Development and Regulation Urban Areas Act. 1975 and Haryana Development and Regualation of Urban Rules. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1975 Act" and "1976 Rules", respectively). The original policy decision was taken on 21st November, 1999 to allow Starred Hotel in the residential zones of development plans of controlled areas which was followed by another decision dated 6th January. 2000 notified vide policy decision dated 6th March, 2000. It was decided to approve the proposal to release the land purchased by the Coloniser before issue of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act for which application for commercial licence was made. Thereafter if the Director Town and Country Planning. Haryana finds that the case is fit for grant of commercial licence, he will obtain the concurrence of the government for grant of licence. This decision was formulated for the intergrated development of urban areas and generation of resources for the State in the shape of conversion charges, scrutiny fee and external development charges.