Portrayals Of Gross Unmindfulness Of Officers; Land Repeatedly Targeted For Acquisition By State Since 1962: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Rs. 5 Lakhs Compensation
The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the Petition seeking quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted Rs. 5 lakh in compensation to a man whose land the State had been repeatedly targeting to acquire since 1963, while remarking that the same was a portrayal of "gross unmindfulness of the officers of the departments concerned.”
The Court allowed the Petition seeking quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act). The Court held that the exercise of power of eminent domain vis-a-vis the present subject land, rather was a “misemployed power.”
A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri held, “The further telling consequence of the above made inference by this Court, is that, the supra inference qua the present subject lands becoming singularly chosen or becoming repeatedly targeted since the year 1962 uptill now, thus for the public purposes concerned, rather therefroms acquiring an added strength. In sequel, this Court firmly concludes that the exercising of power of eminent domain vis-a-vis the present subject land, rather is a misemployed power. Consequently, the ground of discrimination raised by the present petitioner by filing CM No. 17393 of 2019, does have some tenacity.”
Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Ankur Mittal and Svaneel Jaswal represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner’s grandfather, a displaced person from West Pakistan, had purchased land and established a factory on it. The construction of the factory was completed in 1961 and obtained registration for the factory as a Small Scale Industrial Unit.
A notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in 1962, but no further proceedings were undertaken. Subsequently, the Estate Officer issued notices in 1964 to demolish the factory building for contravening the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction and Un-regulated) Development Act, 1963.
The Petitioner's efforts to obtain permission to retain his factory were followed by a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring the land for "Planned Development of the area of Sector-12 Faridabad/Ballabgarh Controlled Area".
Court’s Observations
The Court noted the repeated endeavours to acquire the land since 1962 and inferred that the power of eminent domain was being exercised with sub coloris officio.
“However, though prima facie the said argument has some force but in the factual scenario (supra) which exists before this Court, which loudly speaks of the power of eminent domain becoming misemployed, besides becoming employed with malafides, and, also being infected with the vices of discrimination, and, arbitrariness, thereupons an inference becomes aroused, that the said argument has to prima facie succumb to the supra made inference(s) by this Court,” the Court remarked.
the Court stated, "As such, all the supra appositely made release orders, as also the supra made exchanges of the lands also covered by an acquisition notification, thus similar to the present subject acquisition notification, to the considered mind of this Court, rather are portrayals of gross unmindfulness of the officers of the departments concerned, to effectively instruct the learned State counsel, vis-a-vis the supra ill-effets, and, also is a gross failure of performance of duty by the then State counsel, to awaken this Court about the impact,"
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In summa, this Court finds merit in the instant petition, and, is constrained to allow it. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed, but with exemplary compensation of Rs. 5.00 lacs (Rupees Five lacs) becoming paid to the present petitioner by the respondents concerned. The impugned notifications are quashed, and, set aside. In case, the sectoral roads are required to be carved out, thereupon it is open for the State to choose such other lands which would sub-serve the said public purpose.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Umesh Kumar Madhok v. State of Haryana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:046106-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma; Advocate Sandeep Singh
Respondents: Addl. A.G. Ankur Mittal and Svaneel Jaswal; Sr. DAG Pardeep Prakash Chahar; DAG Saurabh Mago and Gaurav Bansa; AAG Karan Jindal; Advocates P.S. Chauhan, Ankur Mittal, Sandeep Chabbra, Gurcharan Kaur, Kushaldeep Kaur and Saanvi Singla