LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-153

CHETNA ESTATE PVT LIMITE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On July 01, 2009
Chetna Estate Pvt Limite Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition seeks a direction to release of land of the petitioners in the same manner as has been done in other casesunder the policy of the State dated 26.10.2007, Annexure P.6, from acquisition and for quashing the proceedings for acquisition initiated vide notification dated 7.2.2008 under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') notification dated 6.2.2009 under section 6 of the Act on the ground of policy of release.

(2.) THUS , there are two issues raised:-

(3.) FACTS pleaded are that the petitioners are developers and have purchased land for development in consonance with the State policy. They purchased the land between 2005-07 except 11 kanals 10 marlas of land purchased by petitioner No.1 on 5.9.2008. The said land has been included in acquisition by the above notification. The State of Haryana has a policy of issuing licences under the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 for development of a colony even if lands proposed to be developed as colonies are already covered by notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act. This is evident from the affidavits filed by the State dated 26.8.2007, 20.9.2007 and 29.10.2007, Anenxures P.2 to P.4 and also from the report of the Chief Secretary dated 10.2.2009, Annexure P.5. Further policy of the State is that application for grant of licence is entertained even after initiation of acquisition proceedings. The Government has also adopted a policy dated 26.10.2007, Annexure P.6. Notification dated 6.2.2009 has been issued without considering the objections of the petitioners under section 5-A of the Act. There was non compliance of provisions relating to publication. As per notification dated 14.9.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, projects covered under the Schedule require prior clearance which has not been done in the present case. Some of the land has already been released from acquisition. Affidavit Annexure P.2 mentions that where area is notified for acquisition, release can be considered for those who apply for licence under the provisions of the 1975 Act. There is a reference to policies permitting the release of land from acquisition for developers or for Star Hotels even after initiation of acquisition proceedings. Report Annexure P.5 states that licence for development could be granted to land owner whose land was occupied for acquisition, if he enters into a collaboration with a colonizer. Policy Annexure P.6, inter alia, is that if an application for licence is made under section 3 of the 1975 Act prior to award for converting land into a colony, such land can be considered for release. The Government may also consider release of land where owners have approached the Court and obtained stay.