TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (11) TMI 1022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....State of Punjab after partition. In the words of Jawahar Lal Nehru, Chandigarh represented vision of modern India "Unfettered by the traditions of the past, a symbol of nation's faith in future". In 1966, re-organization of the State of Punjab took place and Chandigarh was declared as capital for both the States of Punjab and Haryana. Chandigarh also became border city for Punjab and Haryana. Eastern Chandigarh bordered Haryana, while to the west was Punjab. The greenbelt created around Union Territory, Chandigarh to check the haphazard urban growth lost its effectiveness, as Haryana developed a new town of Panchkula, whereas Punjab developed S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Both, Panchkula and S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali are described as satellite towns of Chandigarh. 2. A writ petition bearing Civil Writ Petition No. 3065 of 2008 titled as 'Aarushi Cooperative Group Housing Society and another v. Chief Administrator, HUDA and others' came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. In this writ petition, the residents of two Cooperative Societies, which are situated in Sector 20, Panchkula, invoked public interest jurisdiction of this Court by impleading the Chief Administrator, Harya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3065 of 2008 titled as 'Aarushi Cooperative Group Housing Society and another v. Chief Administrator, HUDA and others' were heard together and shall stand decided by the common order. Fourth writ petition, i.e. CWP No.7882 of 2007 titled as 'Dr.O.P. Munjal and another v. State of Haryana and others' filed by residents of Panchkula in public interest with a prayer that the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula and Municipal Councilor, Panchkula be directed to upkeep and maintain the city of Panchkula by ensuring overall hygiene, pollution free atmosphere accompanied by basic amenities, though ordered to be heard along with these cases, shall be decided separately. 4. As noticed above, three writ petitions, viz. CWP No.3065 of 2008; CWP No.3855 of 1982 and CWP No.3673 of 1983 pertain to Sector 20, Panchkula, which before development of the city, was known as village Kundi, Hadbast No.366, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala. For redressal of grievance raised in CWP No.3065 of 2008 that sewage system be provided, two writ petitions, viz. CWP No.3855 of 1982 and CWP No.3673 of 1983 are required to be decided, as according to the authorities, order of stay of dispossession is an impediment in ens....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m, therefore, they made enquiries and learnt that no publication, by proclamation or otherwise, had been made in the locality, of the substance of any Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners annexed duly translated affidavits of 16 residents of the locality as Annexure P-4 to P-19 to say that no munadi or proclamation through Chowkidar or any other person in respect of land was made. This writ petition was filed on 29th August, 1982. Thus, a grievance was made that due to non-publication of the Notification, petitioners have been denied valuable right vested in them under Section 5A of the Act to file objections against the proposed acquisition. To fortify this plea, it was further averred that stance of the respondents that the substance of the Notification was published in the locality by beat of drum and a report to this effect was recorded, should be discarded as report so made, is a fictitious and fabricated document. The report made by the Patwari, bearing report No.349, was annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-20. To assert that the report No.349 was ante-dated and a fabricated document, affidavits of Hardit Singh and Rabbi, two Chowkidars, we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 4 of the Act was duly published in the concerned locality by way of loud voice and beat of empty tin, by Rabbi Chowkidar. An entry to this effect was made in Daily Rapat Roznamcha Wakiati of the Halka Patwari at Sr. No.349 on 25th June, 1980. The written statement denied the averment that no publication was made in response to the publication of the substance of Notification. It stated that 29 land owners had filed their objections under Section 5A of the Act. In the course of arguments, it was urged that if on account of same publication, 29 land owners could file objections, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to plead that no such publication had taken place. It was further stated in the reply that petitioners No.4, 5, 6, 7 and 10 had filed their claims under Section 9 of the Act. In support of this contention, affidavits of Rabbi Chowkidar and Kanhaiya Lal Patwari were annexed with the reply as Annexures R-1 and R-2. After the written statement was filed by the State of Haryana, on 17^th November, 1982 this Court ordered that the original record be produced on 30th November, 1982 and the presence of Patwari be also ensured on that day. On 30th Novembe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Roznamcha, wherein the thumb-impression of Hardit Chaukidar does not appear. On this, the witness states that he had inadvertently mentioned in the true copy- the thumb-impression of Hardit Chaukidar. I did not get the substance of notification under Section 4 published in the concerned locality through Rabi Chaukidar. I have wrongly stated in para 2 of my affidavit, Annexure R-2, that I got the substance of notification published through Rabi Chaukidar. Again said, that the publication was made by Rabi Chaukidar. It is correct that whatever is stated in my affidavit, Annexure R-2, is incorrect. But I do not know English." We are informed that Kanhaiya Lal Patwari has died. A perusal of his statement shows that no opportunity was given to the State of Haryana to cross-examine this witness. 11. From 1982 (when the writ petition was filed) till 2009 (when it was taken up for final disposal), within the span of 27 years, many developments and events have taken place, which are required to be noticed, as they were brought on the case file by filing numerous Misc. Applications and additional affidavits. It will be necessary to detail these developments and events briefly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es), CWP No.3673 of 1983 (105 kanal 15 marlas) and CWP No.3477 of 1982 (21.75 acres). CWP 3477 of 1982 was rendered infructuous on 19th April, 2006, as the Director, Town and Country Planning Haryana, Panchkula, vide his letter dated 24th November, 2005 addressed to the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, stated that the Government had agreed to release the land of the petitioners to Civil Writ Petition No.3477 of 1983, Ishwar Chand Aggarwal and others v. State of Haryana. (iv) Jagvinder Singh petitioner No.6, who owned 3.93 acres of land, during the pendency of the writ petition, sold the same to Sham Sunder Sardana. Sham Sunder Sardana filed Civil Misc. application No.15832 of 1998 in this Court for being impleaded as petitioner. The application was allowed and he was impleaded as petitioner No.11 vide order dated 24th August, 1998 passed in CM application No.15832 of 1998. (v) Petitioner No.7 Smt. Mohinder Jaspal Singh, who owned 5.81 acres of land, sold the same during the pendency of the writ petition to Mrs. Santosh Kaur, Paramveer Singh, Harmeet Singh, Ms. Harbinder Kaur and Mrs.Rita. They filed Civil Misc. application No. 29183 of 2001 to be impleaded as petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round that they had entered into an agreement of collaboration during the pendency of the writ petition with Petitioners No.4 and 5 to CWP No. 3855 of 1982. Petitioners No.4 and 5 owned 6.92 acres of land out of the land sought to be acquired. The agreement of collaboration has been attached with Civil Misc. No.11796 of 2009. One of the conditions of the collaboration agreement reads as under: "5. That the said Developers have paid to the said Owners, a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- (Rs.Sixty five lacs only) vide cheque No.061082 dated 05.12.08 in favour of Sh. Sarabjit Singh and Rs.65,00,000/- (Rs.Sixty five lacs only) vide cheque No.061083 dated 05.12.08 in favour of Smt. Swarajit Kaur, drawn on Allahabad Bank, Sector-11, Panchkula, in addition to Rs.70,00,000/- (Rs. Seventy lacs only) already received at the time of signing of agreement on dated 07.09.2004, thus totaling Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rs. Two crores only), as part advance payment for due performance of the obligations undertaken under this Collaboration Agreement, for which amount, the said Owner hereby acknowledge the receipt in the presence of the marginal witnesses. Above said advance payment is against the Owners share ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestion was published in the locality as required under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? During the pendency of the writ petition, due to subsequent developments and events, another three following questions have emerged for our consideration. Since the issues which have arisen from the pleadings, have been given Sr. No.1 and 2, therefore, these questions are given Sr. No.3, 4 and 5. 3. Whether by the issuance of subsequent Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 29th January, 1990 followed by Notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 25th January, 1991 and another Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 26th April, 1995, earlier Notifications issued, which have been impugned as Annexure P-1, 2 and 3 shall stand superseded ? 4. Whether after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, sale of land by petitioners No.6 and 7 and separate agreements of collaboration executed by petitioners No. 4 and 5, and petitioners No. 8 to 10, disentitle subsequent purchasers and signatories to collaboration agreements to assail the impugned Notifications ? 5. Whether release of land by State of Haryana in favour of petitioners No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rin has relied upon 'Trimbak Shivrudra v. The State' AIR (37) 1950 Nagpur 203 to say that the presumption is rebuttable. It will be apposite here to reproduce following extract of the judgment: "8. Section 81, Evidence Act provides that Courts shall presume the genuineness of every document referred to therein. Official Gazettes are amongst the documents included in that Section. It is therefore clear that we must raise an initial presumption that C.O.S. which is published in the Gazette of India dated 26th January, 1950 is a genuine document. The presumption enacted by S. 81 is, however, a rebuttable one. That is clear from the definition of the words "shall presume" which is given in S. 4, Evidence Act. According to that section: 'Whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume a fact, it shall regard such fact as proved, unless and until it is disproved'." A perusal of the judgment rendered in Trimbak Shivrudra's case (supra) reveals that due to mistake, gazette Notification was published on the name of Governor General on 26th January, 1950, whereas on that day, President of India had assumed charge. To rectify this mistake and inaccuracy i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bing textbooks according to such syllabi arrives, both the publishers and the State Government and even the educationists among the public may have some precise conception about the relevant syllabi to enable government to decide upon suitable textbooks from the private market or compiled under Section 5 by the State Government itself. In our view, therefore, "publication" to the educational world is the connotation of the expression. Even the student and the teaching community may have to know what the relevant syllabus for a subject is, which means wider publicity than minimal communication to the departmental officialdom." To illustrate, Mr.Sarin has relied upon case of 'Asia Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Union of India and others' 1984 (18) ELT 152 (Mad) and its various phases of litigation, and has referred to judgments of writ Court, writ appeal Court and lastly of the final pronouncement in appeal by Hon'ble Apex Court, on the same issue, between the same parties. To elucidate and amplify the proposition of law that mere printing of Notification is not enough, after printing, it must be published and made known to the public, the judgments pronounced at various stages of Asia T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., (may be anterior to the publishing) and releasing to the public, the notification, on the same date which the Official Gazette bears. Neither the date of the notification nor the date of printing, nor the date of the Gazette counts for "notification" within the meaning of the rule, but only the date when the public gets notified, in the sense the concerned Gazette is made available to the public. The date of release of the publication is the decisive date to make the notification effective. Printing the Official Gazette and stacking them without releasing to the public would not amount to notification at all. But, so far as the petitioner is concerned, we find that by the communication from the third respondent dated December 6, 1982, which obviously was received by the petitioner on December 7, 1982, the petitioner was put on notice of the withdrawal notification. Hence, the Withdrawal Notification must be held to be effective so far as the petitioner is concerned only from December 7, 1982." Union of India filed an appeal. The writ appeal Court in 'Union of India v. Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd.' 1990 (50) ELT 29 (Mad), not only approved the judgment of Single Bench, but further hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd Dictionary, the word "publish" means "make generally known; announce formally; promulgate; issue copies of (book, engraving, etc.) for sale to the public; and the word "notification" is the act of notifying which means "make known, announce, reiterate, inform, give notice to." 9. Under Section 3(39) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, "Official Gazette" of "Gazette" shall mean the Gazette of India or the Official Gazette of a State. What is Official Gazette and under what authority it is published ? is yet another question. A Gazette is generally understood as an Official Government Journal containing public notices and other prescribed matters. Legal Glossary (1983 Edition) issued by the Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affair, Government of India, defines Gazette as "an official newspaper containing lists of Government appointments, legal notices, dispatches, etc." ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 18. Para 3 of the Office memorandum prescribes the time schedule for publication of the Weekly and Extraordinary Gazettes. An Extraordinary Gazette which is to be printed in bulk re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In our view it is appropriate that this appeal is to be heard by a larger Bench." After considering the divergent views propounded in various judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "11. ... ... ... ... ... The method and mode provided for grant of exemption or withdrawal of exemption is issuance of notification in the Official Gazette. For bringing the notification into operation, the only requirement of the section is its publication in the Official Gazette and no further publication is contemplated. Additional requirement is that under Section 159 such notification is required to be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of thirty days as prescribed therein. Hence, in our view Mayer Hans George (supra) which is followed in Pankaj Jain Agencies case represents the correct exposition of law and the notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act would come into operation as soon as it is published in the Gazette of India i.e. the date of publication of the Gazette. Apart from the prescribed requirement under Section 25, the usual mode of bringing into operation such notification followed since years in this country is its publication in the Official....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....overnment Press at Chandigarh. It was pointed out by him that the number allotted to the Notifications published between May to July, 1980 were in running serial order, which completely belied the petitioners' version that the preliminary Notification impugned in these writ petitions was actually published one and half month after 24th June, 1980. We find considerable merit in the submission of Mr.Hooda. In the absence of any reliable evidence to the contrary, we have no real basis for disbelieving the version given by the respondents on oath that the Notification had in fact been published on 24th June, 1980. A presumption attached to the regularity of official functions in the publication of the Notification on the date on which it purports to be published, therefore, remained unrebutted leaving no option but to reject the contention of the petitioners that the Notification was published after 24th June, 1980 but ante dated as if by way of fraud on the provisions of the Act under which the same was issued. Our answer to question No.1 is, in the light of the above, in the affirmative. Question No.2 On behalf of the petitioners, it was argued by Mr.M.L.Sarin and Mr.Rajiv Atma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....puted questions of fact which cannot satisfactorily be determined in the present proceedings. The Court could, therefore, decline to entertain the said challenge and refuse to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, especially when the petitioners had not come to the Court with clean hands and were attempting to gather the evidence by winning over the officials of the Department also. It was lastly argued by Mr.Hooda that the affidavits of the villagers including the Choukidar regarding actual publication of the Notification in the locality pales into insignificance keeping in view the official record maintained by the Patwari, in which making of Munadi (Publication of Notification by beat of drum/tin) was clearly recorded. Daily diary report (Roznamcha) maintained by the Patwari of the village contained specific entry to the effect that the Notification in question published on 24th June, 1980 in the official gazette had been duly published by beat of drum/tin in the locality. Relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in 'Sudharsh Chander and others v. Gurbux Singh and others' 1980 (II) All India Land Laws Reporter 446, Mr.Hooda argued that the Roznamcha wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntation provided under Section 5-A of 1894 Act which is a valuable right. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Khub Chand and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1967 SC 1074, Narinderjit Singh and others v. The State of U.P. and others, AIR 1973 SC 552; State of Mysore v. Abdul Razak Sahib, AIR 1973 SC 2361. He has also placed reliance on Collector (District Magistrate) Allahabad and another v. Raja Ram Jaiswal, (1985) 3 SCC 1 to contend that even if objections have been filed after publication of the notification under Section 4 of 1984 Act but still the publication of the notification under Section 4 of 1894 Act is required to be mandatorily carried out by the State. The land-owner need not show any prejudice on account of nonpublication of any notification. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in The Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Mohd. Shafi and others, 1992(1) RRR 583 (SC) : 1992(2) Revenue Law Reporter 1 to contend that the public notice is required to be published by the Collector. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment in State of Haryana and another v. Raghubir Dayal, (1995) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that he himself has recorded the original report entered in the Roznamcha Wakiati, whereas in the Court, he has stated that the entire entry has been made by Om Raj, Patwari, Land Acquisition. Secondly, reference was made to the concluding portion of the statement, which reads as under: "I did not get the substance of notification under Section 4 published in the concerned locality through Rabi Chaukidar. I have wrongly stated in para 2 of my affidavit, Annexure R-2, that I got the substance of notification published through Rabi Chaukidar. Again said, that the publication was made by Rabi Chaukidar. It is correct that whatever is stated in my affidavit, Annexure R-2, is incorrect. But I do not know English." In the present case, no opportunity was granted to the State to cross-examine the witness, to seek explanation regarding the discrepancies. Therefore, a statement, which has been recorded without affording any opportunity to cross-examine the party, against whom the statement can be used, offends principles of natural justice. Otherwise also, such a statement will not be a complete statement and cannot be construed as an evidence. Taking into consideration tota....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted any error of law." In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in answering question No.2 also in affirmative and hold that the mandatory compliance of section 4(1) of the Act was adhered to and the substance of Notification was published/ announced in the locality. Question No.3 It is admitted fact that the impugned Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 24th June, 1980 followed by two Notifications under Section 6 of the Act qua 100.31 acre parcel of land and 230.30 acres of land on 17th October, 1980 and 13th July, 1982 respectively. Thereafter, another Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 29th January, 1990 to acquire 134.39 acres of land, which already formed part of the impugned Notification (Annexure P-1) dated 24th June, 1980. To give effect to the Notification dated 29th January, 1990, a Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 25th January, 1991 for 132.88 acres of land. Thereafter, another Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 26th April, 1995, and, land measuring 119.36 acres was notified. The land notified was also included in the earlier Notification (Annexure P1) dated 24th June, 1980. In v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the principles laid down therein, it must be held that the claimants are not right in their contention. The submissions urged on their behalf proceed on the assumption that the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act got exhausted after a Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued, which was later struck down by the High Court as invalid. Reliance placed on the decision in Raghunath and others v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) is misplaced. In that case a similar submission was advanced on the basis of the decision of this Court in (1966) 3 SCR 437 : Girdharilal Amratlal v. State of Gujarat wherein the question for consideration of the Court was whether there could be successive declarations in respect of various parcels of land covered by a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and whether once a declaration under Section 6 particularising the area in the locality specified in the Notification under Section 4 (1) was issued, the remaining non-particularised area stood automatically released. It was in that context that it was observed that once a valid declaration under Section 6 is made, the scope of the Notification under Section 4 will get exhaus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....our opinion where there is a notification, which purports to be by way of an amendment, the question whether it is really one rectifying certain errors in the earlier one or whether its nature is such as to totally change the entire complexion of the matter would have to be considered on the terms of the relevant notifications ... ... ... ..." Therefore, it can be safely inferred that Raghunath's case (supra) does not lay absolute proposition of law. The scope and ambit of Raghunath's case (supra) has been subsequently considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rishabh Ispat Ltd.'s case and Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd.'s case (supra) and it was held that Raghunath's case (supra) was decided on is own facts and does not pronounce any general maxim of law. In the present case, acquisition of the entire chunk of land measuring 335.69 acres, notified under Section 4(1) of the Act on 24th June, 1980, was assailed. Therefore, in view of the interim order, the Government officials, in their own wisdom, proceeded to acquire the land of other land owners by issuing fresh Notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act. The action of the respondents in issuing subsequent Notifications does not le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....00 crores have already been received by petitioner No.4 and petitioner No.5, whereas later Rs.3.00 crores and Rs.7.00 crores respectively are to be paid to petitioner No.4 and 5. In the circumstances, it was canvassed that collaboration agreement is an agreement to sell the entire holding and the purchasers were also aware of issuance of Notifications under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Act and pendency of the writ petitions. It is submitted that if collaboration agreement is read in minute details and veil is lifted, it only tantamounts to outright sale. Mr.Hooda has submitted that since the original land owners have lost their interest and the subsequent purchasers are pursuing the litigation on their behalf, they are disentitled to question the validity of the Notifications (Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3). Mr.Hooda has placed reliance upon a Single Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in 'Shrimati Usha Adlakha v. The State of Haryana and others' 1996 LACC 196, wherein it was stated as under: "21. Before concluding, I deem it proper to refer to one more aspect of the matter, namely, that a person, who purchases the property after issue of notification under Section 4 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r as on the date of Notification under Section 4 (1) published in the Gazette. The direction given by the learned Single Judge is accordingly quashed. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs." Reference can also be made to the subsequent Judgments of the Supreme Court in Smt. Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 1996 SC 540, U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. Lucknow and others, AIR 1996 SC 1170 and Ajay Krishan Shinghal v. Union of India and others, AIR 1996 SC 2677. In the aforesaid judgments as well, the Supreme Court has reiterated its view taken in Shivkumar Bhargava's case (supra) and has held that the purchaser subsequent to the issuance of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 has no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. W.A. Nos. 2079/93 and 2080- 81/93 are accepted on the additional ground and the Writ Petition filed by (now respondents) were not maintainable on their behalf challenging the acquisition proceedings although they would be entitled to claim compensation in place of the original owners." The ratio of law enunciated by the Single Bench of this Court and Full Bench of Karnataka High Court has found fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ession of the land, all rights, title and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder......' The said proposition of law was also reiterated in the cases of Ajay Kishan Shinghal & Ors. v. Union of India, reported in (1996)10 SCC 721 and Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1996)11 SCC 698. 13. In view of the aforesaid decisions it is by now well settled law that under the Land Acquisition Act the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that he would be only entitled to get the compensation." In view of the authoritative pronouncement referred to above, we find merit in the submissions made by Mr.Hawa Singh Hooda, Advocate General Haryana and thus hold that subsequent purchasers are not entitled to question the validity of Notifications (Annexures P-1, P-2 and P-3). Question No.5 Sham Sunder Sardana, petitioner No.11 filed Civil Misc. application No.10914 of 2006 seeking directions that land purchased by him be also released, as has been done in the case of co-petitioners. It was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. In para 14 of the application, it was averred as under: "14. That the land owned by the applicants is similarly situated as the land owned by the legal representatives of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and petitioner no.3 himself as well as that owned by Ishwar Chand, Keshav Chand, etc. While the land owned by the legal representatives of petitioner nos.1 and 2 and petitioner no.3 himself as well as that owned by Ishwar Chand, Keshav Chand, etc. has been released from acquisition and licences to develop group housing colonies thereon has also been granted, the respondents have treated the applicants with a different yardstick and have returned their application for grant of a licence." To controvert these averments, District Town Planner had submitted as under: "... ... ... ... It was reported by HUDA that the site of the applicant falls in Sector-20, Panchkula, which has been planned in two Phases i.e. Part-I and Part-II. In Part-I, grouphousing sites have been carved out and in Part-II, 2040 plots of EWS (Economically Weaker Section) category have been proposed to be carved out. It was also reported that the land of the applicants abuts the pocket of EWS plots o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hing the existing structure have to be taken into consideration by the competent authority while taking a view in the matter. Nothing has been pointed out by the counsel to show that the small quarters constructed by the petitioners are at par with the Surgical Unit or the Maruti Service Station which have been excluded from acquisition. The petitioners have not shown that they are identically placed with those whose land has been exempted. They cannot complain of discrimination." Hon'ble Apex Court, in 'Yadu Nandan Garg v. State of Rajasthan and others' 1996 (1) SCC 334, held as under: "5. It is true, for reasons best known to the authorities, that Anand Nursery had the benefit of the exemption. The wrong exemption under wrong action taken by the authorities will not clothe others to get the same benefit nor can Article 14 be pressed into service on the ground of invidious discrimination. ... ... ... ..." From the perusal of reply filed by the respondents to the application filed by petitioners No.8, 9 and 11, we are of the view that no case of individuous discrimination, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, is made out. Conclusion On all the sc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourt, on 3rd August, 1983, noticed the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that Section 4 Notification was issued on 24th June, 1980 and subsequent Section 6 Notification was issued on 17th October, 1980 and thereafter, the proceedings for acquisition of land have not been finalized. Therefore, the petitioners to this writ petition had restricted their grievance to non-finalization of the proceedings arising out of claim filed by them under Section 9 of the Act. In the reply filed, it was submitted that the award will be announced shortly and the petitioners will be paid compensation at the prevailing market rate. In the present case, dispossession of the petitioners was stayed by this Court on August 3, 1983. Respondent State had filed Civil Misc. No. 1353 of 1993, praying for early hearing of the case on some actual date and in that application it was submitted that the development work of Sector 20, Panchkula is held-up due to the pendency of the writ petition. In that application, it was further averred as under: "5. That the State of Haryana could not announce the award because no constructive planning of the area was possible as out of 330.68 acres, notifie....