KHAZAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 03.11.2006 (Annexure P-12) and all the consequential proceedings including agreement dated 23.06.2008 (Annexure P-10/A) and also the action of the respondent-authorities in adopting pick and choose policy whereby, respondent No.7 has been given benefit totally in an illegal and irregular manner. A prayer has also been made for quashing action of official respondents in releasing the land of respondent No.7 with further direction to release the land of the petitioners, which falls under the same category viz-a-viz respondent No.7.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that the petitioners were joint owner of land falling in Khasra No.39//18 (8-0), 39//24(7-2), 39//25/1(1-16) situated within the revenue estate of village Para, Tehsil and District Rohtak. The land of the petitioners as mentioned above was also made part of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act was also issued and land of respondent No.7 was also acquired. Objections were filed by the petitioners as well as respondent No.7. The land was acquired for commercial Sectors 4 and 5 under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The Award was passed on 29.12.2004 by the Land Acquisition Collector. The acquisition proceedings were challenged by various land owners by way of filing various writ petitions, which were dismissed by relying upon the decision passed in CWP No.15067 of 2004 titled as Jagbir Singh Narwal vs. Union of India and others decided on 18.07.2006. Petitioners came to know that vacant piece of land owned by respondent No.7 was ordered to be released by the State Government. After issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, the State Government decided to carry out a fresh re-survey for releasing various chunks of land acquired by adopting pick and choose manner and no criteria was followed. Respondent No.7 filed CWP No.15067 of 2004, which was dismissed on merits and in spite of dismissal of the same, still his land was released.

(3.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of respondent-authorities as the case of the petitioners was on equal footing but still their land was not released whereas land of respondent No.7 was released. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that CLU was granted to respondent No.7 on the basis of forged documents just to give him undue benefit. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of respondent-authorities was discriminatory and malafide as land of respondent No.7 and some other persons was released in spite of dismissal of writ petition filed by them. The case of the petitioners cannot be said to be on different footing as not only writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed but CWP No.202 of 2005 filed by other persons was also dismissed. By giving undue advantage to respondent No.7, his land was released but claim of the petitioners was not considered. Learned counsel further submits that there was construction over the land of the petitioners and the same has not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel also submits that the malafide of the respondent-authorities is also clear not only from releasing the land of respondent No.7 but that land was used for construction of ITI. Respondent No.7 was given benefit of CLU, which was on the basis of forged documents.