Surya Kant, J.@mdashThis order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 19096, 21403 to 21411 and 23331 of 2011 and also CWP Nos. 2631 and 2654
of 2013 as on the point of commonality, all these cases lay challenge to the notifications dated 11th April, 2002 and 08th April, 2003 issued under
Sections 4 and 6 as well as notices like dated 04th March, 2005 issued u/s 9, followed by the Award dated 06th April, 2005 passed u/s 11 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 mostly on the similar and over-lapping grounds. While the facts of the lead case are being referred to extensively, the
distinguishable facts of connected cases are also briefly noticed.
CWP No. 19096 OF 2011 [Sunt Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.] The three writ petitioners are sons of Ishwar Singh, residents of
village Garhi Bohar, District Rohtak. They impugn the above mentioned notifications, notice and the Award as their land, fully described in Para
No. 1 of the writ petition, situated in the revenue estate of their village is a part of the impugned acquisition. Besides alleging that the impugned
acquisition is hit by various Articles such as Article 14, 19, 21 and 31 of the Constitution, they also allege it to be in contravention of provisions of
the 1894 Act. The petitioners are said to have constructed their residential house[s] over a piece of land measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas which too
has been acquired. The acquisition is alleged to be a glaring example of hostile discrimination and a colourable exercise of power for the private
benefit of respondent No. 11-a private Builder-cum-Developer. The petitioners also seek that the Sale Deeds executed in favour of respondent
No. 11- the Builder-cum-Developer be declared null and void after the passing of the Award and the release of that land in favour of the Builder-
cum-Developer be held a fraudulent and discriminatory exercise of power. The consequential prayer for the quashing of the release orders
[Annexures P-28 and P-29] has also been made. In addition, the petitioners seek quashing of the Licence [s] [Annexure P-27] granted to
respondent No. 11-Builder-cum- Developer under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 [in short 1975 Act]. The
petitioners have also assailed constitutionality of the Ordinance, followed by the Amendment Act whereby Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1972 has been amended retrospectively w.e.f. 22nd December, 1972 for totally non-agrarian purposes and to help private Builder-cum-
Developers. The amending law is statedly hit by Article 13 and various other provisions of the Constitution.
2. The State of Haryana, vide notification dated 11th April, 2002 issued under. Section 4 of the Act proposed to acquire land measuring 850.88
Acres situated within the revenue estates of Villages Garhi Bohar, Kheri Shad and Pehrawar, Tehsil & District Rohtak ""for a public purpose,
namely, for residential/commercial Sector 27-28, Rohtak under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban
Development Authority"".
3. The petitioners and various other landowners submitted objections u/s 5A of the Act, which were duly considered by the Land Acquisition
Collector, who recommended to release their residential houses as each petitioner was found to have constructed a residential house in an area
measuring 2 kanals 13 marlas in Khasra No. 12 and Rect. No. 33. Since the three petitioners had filed their individual objections, the Land
Acquisition Collector also made separate recommendations to exempt their constructed houses ''A'' class construction. The recommendations
made by the Land Acquisition Collector, however, did not find favour with the State Government.
4. Declaration u/s 6 was notified on 08th April, 2003 [P-9] whereunder only 441.11 Acres [as against the proposal of 850.88 Acres], was
decided to be acquired.
5. The Land Acquisition Collector passed three Awards, namely, No. 1, 2 and 3 on 06th April, 2005 [P-11 to P-13] for three different villages
for the total land measuring 422.44 Acres i.e. 280.14 Acre of land in village Garhi Bohar, 87.54 Acre of land in village Kheri Shad and 54.76
Acres in village Pehrawar. Para 11 of the Award says that ""up to the announcement of award i.e. 06.04.2005 the possession of the land acquired
has been taken over after offering the compensation. Thus, the land of which possession has been taken vests in the ownership of Haryana
Government and on transfer will vest in Haryana Urban Development Authority free from all encumbrances from today"".
6. Hitherto starts the second phase of the subject expropriatory action. The time-gap of nearly two years in passing the Award activated
respondent No. 11--Builder-cum-Developer who started entering into ""Collaboration Agreements"" with the farmers--owners whose lands were
under acquisition and moved ""joint applications"" for the grant of Licence[s] for development of a Residential Plotted Colony under the Haryana
Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. These applications were moved on 21st March, 2005 [for 84.04 Acres], 22nd March,
2005 [for 83.83 Acres] and 27th April, 2006 [for 113.04375 Acres] of land. Simultaneously, the respondent--Builder also gave cheques towards
the full and final sale-consideration of the lands to all such farmers.
7. The above mentioned applications were accepted and various Licences valid up to 31st August, 2008 were granted firstly on 12th June, 2006
[about 50 Acres]; on 1st August, 2006 [60.43 Acres] and then several licences on 01st September, 2006. All the Licences were purportedly
granted to the ''owners of the land'', each one was issued and sent to ""c/o N-49, First Floor, Ca-naught Place, New Delhi-110001"", i.e. The
official abode of the 11th respondent.
8. After granting Licences to develop the land as a residential colony, the State Government passed various orders including dated 12th June,
2006 [P-28 and P-29], releasing the land from acquisition. The description of the released land was duly appended and ''addressed'' to the
owners but in the ''Enclosure'' appended to the release orders, it was respondent No. 11-the Builder-cum-Developer who was mentioned as the
''sole owner'' of the released land.
9. Respondent No. 11-Builder-cum-Developer immediately sent copies of the Licences to the Estate Officer, HUDA vide letters like dated 10th
October, 2006, indicating that HUDA authorities need not take any further step in respect of the subject land [acquired for HUDA] and on receipt
of this information, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak also without any loss of time sent a communication dated 12th October, 2006 to the
Director, Urban Estates Department, Haryana informing that respondent No. 11-Builder has deposited various charges including External
Development Charges.
10. The farmer-owners after obtaining the ''release orders'' for their acquired land executed the Sale Deeds [P-14 to P-25] on 25th January, 2007
in favour of respondent No. 11-Builder-cum-Developer after acknowledging the fact that the agreed consideration amount ""have already been
received by the vendors from the vendee as per the details mentioned herein below, the receipt of which the vendors hereby admits, confirms and
acknowledges.....
11. Every Sale Deed has been signed and executed for and on behalf of the landowners by Sanjay Jain son of M.L. Jain and Ravi Khera son of
S.N. Khera, in whose favour ''General Power of Attorneys'' were executed on 08th March, 2006 duly registered at Sub Registrar, Bawal, District
Rewari. Every Sale Deed furnishes the details of payments, mostly paid by way during cheques during June/July, 2005. Both the Power of
Attorney holders are Authorised Representatives of respondent No. 11-Builder.
12. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioners allege that no ''Collaboration'' or ''Agreement to Sell'' was executed by them nor did they
give any GPA in favour of the private builder in respect of the land or the residential houses which is the subject matter of this petition. They,
however, admit to have executed such Collaboration or Agreement to Sell as well as GPA in respect of their other land. They have further alleged
that signatures/thumb impressions of hundreds of landowners were obtained on stereotyped blank Agreements/GPAs and respondent No. 11
included the land in dispute also in the blank Agreement/GPA executed by the petitioners for the other land. The respondents have controverted
the petitioners'' claim. This disputed question of fact, however, does not have any material bearing on the crucial issue as to whether the impugned
acquisition is a mala-fide and colourable exercise of power to coerce farmers for entering into the Agreements or execute distress sales in favour of
the Builder?
13. The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Rohtak has filed written statement dated 18th May, 2012 on behalf of the State of Haryana,
Director, Urban Estates and on his own behalf. In the preliminary submissions No. 1 to 7, it is explained that the mandatory procedure
contemplated under the 1894 Act was minutely complied with and after consideration of objections filed u/s 5A as also on re-survey of the area
conducted under the directions of the Chief Minister of the State that the blocks of thickly populated areas having ''A'' and ''B'' class constructions
were decided to be released and thereafter the declaration u/s 6 of the 1894 Act was issued. The area measuring 18.67 Acres of land in village
Garhi Bohar was also released from acquisition. Preliminary Submission No. 8 says as follows:--
8. That the possession of the land of the petitioner was handed over to Estate Officer, HUDA on the date of award i.e. 06.04.2005. Entry to this
effect has been made in the Ra-pat Rojnamacha vide No. 297 dated 06.04.2005 of village Pehrawar, No. 385 dated 06.04.2005 of village Kheri
Sadh and No. 418 dated 06.04.2005 of Garhi Bohar.
14. The Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak has filed a separate written statement on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 5 objecting against the
maintainability of this petition after the announcement of the Award. The acquisition process is said to have been carried out strictly in accordance
with law. Relying upon the decision in Anand Buttons Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , it is claimed that even if erroneous exemption has
been granted to some parties from the acquisition, it would not arm the petitioners to seek similar relief.
15. Another short reply has been filed by District Town Planner, Rohtak on behalf of respondents No. 2,6, 9 and 10. The affidavit explains that
the procedure was followed while the land was acquired. Denying the petitioners'' claim that they are still in possession of the land, reliance has
been placed on three decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in [i] Mandir Shree Sitaramji alias Shree Sitaram Bhandar Vs. Land Acquisition
Collector and Others, ; [ii] P.K. Kalburqui v. State of Karnataka, 2005(12) SCC 489 and [iii] Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial
Trust, Amritsar Vs. State of Punjab and others, to contend that on passing of the award and with the necessary entries in the Rapat Roznamcha,
the possession of the acquired land stood delivered in favour of the State. It is claimed in the affidavit that the landowners have, after issuance of
Section 4 notification, entered into Collaboration Agreements on 02nd March, 2005 ""of their own with respondent No. 11, i.e., M/s. Uddar
Gagan Properties Private Limited for development of their land into a Residential Plotted Colony and also executed a Power of Attorney on 2nd
March, 2005 in favour of the said Company for pursuing their case for release of land and grant of licence in accordance with the policy of the
State Government"". The Legislative Policies behind the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, Haryana Development and Regulation
of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, are
claimed to have been harmonised through the Government policy dated 26th October, 2007, which justifiably empowers the release of land on an
application received from the owner prior to the passing of the Award, for conversion of his land into a ''Colony''. The execution of Sale Deeds,
[Annexures P-8 to P-20] in favour of respondent No. 11 is also defended.
16. Respondent No. 11-the Builder-cum-Developer has filed two reply-affidavits dated 12th March, 2012 and dated 22nd September, 2012. In
the first short affidavit, it is, inter-alia, alleged that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and have suppressed true and
material facts including the interim stay granted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court against the judgment of this Court dated 17th November, 2010 in
CWP No. 7655 of 2005 [M/s. Sindhu Education Foundation & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]. The other objection raised by respondent No.
11 emanates from the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Udai Chand Vs. Shankar Lal and Others, , that the discretionary relief can not be
granted to a party who attempts to over-reach the Court by false or untrue statements. The last prayer in the short affidavit is that the matter may
be adjourned sine-die to await the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in M/s. Sindhu Education Foundation''s case. In the second affidavit,
respondent No. 11 has averred that the petitioners delivered physical possession of their entire holdings after the receipt of valuable consideration
duly acknowledged by them vide Account Payee cheques credited in their Bank Accounts. It is admitted in Para 4[i][b] of the reply/affidavit that
the land purchased from the petitioners vide Sale Deed dated 25th January, 2007 has been released from acquisition. It is averred that the
petitioners have no locus-standi to question the licence or release orders passed in favour of 11th respondent and that the Sale Deeds have not
been executed in violation of provisions of the 1894 Act. It is maintained that the petitioners can not blow hot and cold from the same breath and
are estopped by their act and conduct from questioning the Sale Deeds, licence or the release orders as they have received ""prevailing market
value of the land at the relevant time"". It is further explained that licence has been granted to develop a residential colony as per the policy decision
of the State.
17. The petitioners have filed their separate rejoinders to above mentioned written statements reiterating their allegations of mala-fide and
colourable exercise of power by the State apparatus for the benefit of 11th respondent.
18. Chief Town Planner, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana has filed an additional affidavit dated 29th May, 2013 in response
to this Court''s query as to how the licences were granted by releasing the land after announcement of the Award. In Para 4 of the affidavit, it is
averred that respondent No. 11-Builder-cum-Developer entered into Collaboration Agreements with the owners after issuance of Section 4
notification and vide applications dated 21st and 22nd March, 2005 and 22nd April, 2006 applied for the grant of licence in respect of land
measuring more than 281 Acres. The affidavit claims that though the Award was passed on 6th April, 2005, however, ""possession of all the land
could not be taken due to standing Crops"". Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak was requested to send a report regarding taking of possession who
vide report dated 17th March, 2006 informed that though the possession was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector as per Rapat Roznamcha
but the owners were allowed to retain possession upto 30th April, 2005 as there were standing Rabi Crops on some portion of the land. It is
claimed that out of the land for which the Builder applied for licence, 84.04 Acres and 60.43 Acres were still in possession of landowners who
meanwhile approached this Court and obtained order of status quo on 7th February, 2006. It is, thus, asserted that owners were still in possession
at the time when ''licence'' was granted on 01st September, 2006. Para 6 of the affidavit refers to the writ petitions filed by respondent No. 11 and
some landowners challenging the acquisition and seeking a direction that they were entitled for the grant of licence on the same pattern as was
granted to respondent No. 11 on 1st September, 2006. Those writ petitions were allowed by this Court on 6th December, 2010 with a direction
to the respondents to grant licences to the petitioners within a period of two months. It is claimed that subsequent licences were granted on 3rd and
7th September, 2012 pursuant to the above stated directions. The additional affidavit also highlights the Legislative Policy behind various Statutes.
It is propagated that policies dated 26th October, 2007 and 24th January, 2011, have been issued to harmonise the provisions of more than one
Statutes. The affidavit sums up by saying:--
12. That a perusal of the facts stated above would reveal that Licence No. 1081 to 1104 of 2006 for an area of 60.43 acres, Licence No. 1105
to 1124 of 2006 for area 51.365 acres were granted only after verifying the fact that despite announcement of the award on 06.04.2005, physical
possession of the land was still with the landowners and has not been taken over by the State/HUDA. Further, Licence No. 91 of 2012,96 of
2012 and 99 of 2012 for additional land measuring 92.725 acres, 15.80 acres and 32.45 acres respectively were granted in accordance with the
directions given by this Hon''ble Court order dated 06.12.2010 in CWP No. 14451, 14452 and 14453 of 2010.
CWP No. 21403 of 2011 [Santosh Kumari & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]:
19. The two petitioners in this case are mother and son respectively, who were owners in possession to the extent of 1/12th share each in the land
measuring 161 kanals 10 marlas described in Para 1 of the writ petition and situated in the revenue estate of village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil & District
Rohtak. The petitioners in this case also entered into Collaboration Agreement, executed GPA through which Sale Deeds of their land were also
executed in favour of respondent No. 11-Builder. The nature of relief, factual and legal pleas taken by the petitioners in this case are identical to
those in CWP No. 19096 of 2011 [Sant Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]. The stand taken by different respondents is also identical. No
compensation in respect of the acquired land was received by the petitioners.
CWP No. 21404 OF 2011 [Naveen & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]:
20. The three petitioners in this case are the son and two daughters of Ranbir Singh, who are also co-sharers to the extent of 1/12th share each in
the land measuring 161 kanals 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil & district Rohtak, fully described in Para No.
1 of the writ petition. The petitioners in this case also entered into Collaboration Agreement, executed GPA through which Sale Deeds of their land
were also executed in favour of respondent No. 11-Builder. The nature of relief, factual and legal pleas taken by the petitioners in this case are
identical to those in CWP No. 19096 of 2011 [Sant Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]. The stand taken by different respondents is also
identical. No compensation in respect of the acquired land was received by the petitioners.
CWP No. 21405 OF 2011 [Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.]:
21. The petitioner in this case is co-sharer to the extent of 1/3 rd share in the land measuring 161 kanals 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate of
village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil & district Rohtak, fully described in Para No. 1 of the writ petition. The petitioner too entered into Collaboration
Agreement, executed GPA through which Sale Deed of his land was executed in favour of respondent No. 11-Builder. The nature of relief, factual
and legal pleas taken by the petitioner in this case are identical to those in CWP No. 19096 of 2011 [Sunt Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana &
Ors.]. The stand taken by different respondents is also identical. No compensation in respect of the acquired land was received by the petitioner.
CWP No. 21406 OF 2011 [Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.]:
22. The petitioner in this case is co-sharer to the extent of 1/12th share of his own as well as 1/6th share of his mother Patasho Devi in the land
measuring 161 kanals 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil & district Rohtak, fully described in Para No. 1 of the
writ petition. The petitioner entered into Collaboration Agreement, executed GPA through which Sale Deed of his land was also executed in favour
of respondent No. 11-Builder. The nature of relief, factual and legal pleas taken by the petitioner in this case are identical to those in CWP No.
19096 of 2011 [Sant Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]. The stand taken by different respondents is also identical. No compensation in
respect of the acquired land was received by the petitioner.
CWP No. 21407 OF 2011 [Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.]:
23. The petitioner in this case is a co-sharer to the extent of 2/9th share in the land measuring 161 kanals 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate
of village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil & district Rohtak, fully described in Para No. 1 of the writ petition. The petitioner also entered into Collaboration
Agreement, executed GPA through which Sale Deed of his land was also executed in favour of respondent No. 11-Builder. The nature of relief,
factual and legal pleas taken by the petitioner in this case are identical to those in CWP No. 19096 of 2011 [Sant Singh & Ors. v. State of
Haryana & Ors.]. The stand taken by different respondents is also identical. No compensation in respect of the acquired land was received by the
petitioner.
CWP No. 21408 of 2011 [Bhagwan & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]:
24. Petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 are brothers while petitioners No. 4 and 5 are their sisters. Petitioner No. 6 is their mother. Each petitioner has
209/1256th share in the land fully described in Para No. 1 of the writ petition along with total area of each Khasra Number, situated in the revenue
estate of village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil & District Rohtak. The above stated land has been acquired vide impugned notifications, followed by Award
No. 1 dated 6th April, 2005. The distinguishable fact is that the petitioners were statedly approached by respondent No. 11-Builder-cum-
Developer to enter into Agreement to Sell or a Collaboration Agreement for consideration but they refused. The petitioners also refused to receive
compensation for their acquired land. While questioning the acquisition of their land on various grounds, in particular, alleging mala-fide and
colourable exercise of power, the petitioners heavily rely upon the ground of discrimination as the land in their neighbourhood belonging to several
owners has been released by the State on execution of Agreements in favour of respondent No. 11 but not of the petitioners though they are
similarly placed persons.
25. Additional Director, Urban Estates Department has filed short reply on behalf of State of Haryana and the department maintaining that the land
was acquired strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the objections filed by the petitioners u/s 5A were duly considered by the
State Government along with report sent by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is averred that the possession of the petitioners'' land was handed-
over to the Estate Officer, HUDA on the date of award, i.e., 6th April, 2005, hence the writ petition filed after six years of passing of the Award is
liable to be dismissed in the light of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Others, . The allegations of discrimination or pick and choose policy have been denied. The claim of the petitioners for the release
of their residential houses/structures has also been controverted on the plea that they raised unauthorised construction evading conversion and
development charges and in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated
Development Act, 1963. It has been highlighted that the land of only those owners have been released who entered into Collaboration Agreements
with respondent No. 11-Builder.
26. The Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 7 has filed written statement in which the factum of release of the land in favour of the private
builder on the basis of various Collaboration or Sale Agreements has been admitted, though it is maintained that the acquisition has been made
strictly in accordance with law and that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition after the passing of the Award.
27. The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rohtak-respondent No. 8 has also filed a short reply-affidavit explaining that though the acquired
land is a part of the Municipal area declared vide separate Government notifications but the Municipal Council is not the beneficiary of the subject
acquisition.
28. Respondent No. 11 has filed two reply/affidavits dated 12th March, 2012 and dated 22nd September, 2012, disputing the petitioners'' locus
standi for challenging the licence or release of land or the sale deeds executed by various landowners in its favour. In both the affidavits,
respondent No. 11 has reiterated its objections and reply on merits, which it has taken in its two affidavits filed in CWP No. 19096 of 2011.
29. The Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana and the District Town Planner, Rohtak have also filed their
respective written statements reiterating the averments made by them in their written statements filed in CWP No. 19096 of 2011 [Sunt Singh &
Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.].
30. The petitioners have filed a joint replication to the written statements filed by the different respondents reiterating their allegations that the
acquisition of their land is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and has not been made for any public purpose.
CWP No. 21409 OF 2011 [Bijender Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.]:
31. The petitioner in this case is a co-sharer to the extent of 1/3rd share in the land measuring 161 kanals 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate
of village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil & district Rohtak, fully described in Para No. 1 of the writ petition.
The petitioner also entered into Collaboration Agreement, executed GPA through which Sale Deed of his land was executed in favour of
respondent No. 11-Builder. The nature of relief, factual and legal pleas taken by the petitioner in this case are identical of those in CWP No.
19096 of 2011 [Sant Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]. The stand taken by different respondents is also identical. No compensation in
respect of the acquired land was received by the petitioner.
CWP No. 21410 of 2011 [Sunil& Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]:
32. The Petitioners are co-owners in the land measuring more than four Acres, fully described in Para No. 1 of the writ petition situated in the
revenue estate of village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil & District Rohtak. The above stated land has also been acquired vide impugned notifications,
followed by Award No. 1 dated 6th April, 2005. The petitioners were statedly approached by respondent No. 11-Builder-cum-Developer to
enter into Agreement to Sell or a Collaboration Agreement for consideration but they refused. The petitioners also refused to receive compensation
for their acquired land. While questioning the acquisition of their land on various grounds, in particular, alleging mala-fide and colourable exercise of
power, the petitioners have also built up the ground of discrimination on the plea that the land in their neighbourhood belonging to several owners
has been released as they executed Agreements in favour of the Builder but not that of the petitioners though they are similarly placed.
33. Additional Director, Urban Estates Department has filed short reply on behalf of State of Haryana and the department maintaining that the land
was acquired strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the objections filed by the petitioners u/s 5A were duly considered by the
State Government along with the report sent by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is averred that the possession of the petitioners'' land was
handed-over to the Estate Officer, HUDA on the date of award, i.e., 6th April, 2005, hence the writ petition filed after six years of passing of the
Award is liable to be dismissed in the light of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Others, . The allegations of discrimination or pick and choose policy have been refuted. The claim of the petitioners for the
release of their residential houses/structures has also been controverted on the plea that they raised unauthorised construction evading conversion
and development charges and in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated
Development Act, 1963. It has been highlighted that the land of only those owners have been released who entered into Collaboration Agreements
with respondent No. 11-Builder.
34. The Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 7 has filed written statement in which the factum of release of the land in favour of the private
builder on the basis of various Collaboration or Sale Agreements has been admitted, though it is maintained that the acquisition has been made
strictly in accordance with law and that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition after the passing of the Award.
35. The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rohtak-respondent No. 8 has also filed a short reply-affidavit explaining that though the acquired
land is a part of the Municipal area declared vide separate Government notifications but the Municipal Council is not the beneficiary of the subject
acquisition.
36. Respondent No. 11 has filed two reply/affidavits dated 12th March, 2012 and dated 22nd September, 2012, disputing the petitioners'' locus
standi for challenging the licence or release of land or the sale deeds executed by various landowners in its favour. In both the affidavits,
respondent No. 11 has reiterated its objections and reply on merits, which it has taken in its two affidavits filed in CWP No. 19096 of 2011.
37. The Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana and the District Town Planner, Rohtak have also filed their
respective written statements reiterating the averments made by them in their written statements filed in CWP No. 19096 of 2011 [Sunt Singh &
Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. J.
38. The petitioners have filed a joint replication to the written statements filed by the different respondents reiterating their allegations that the
acquisition of their land is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and has not been made for any public purpose.
CWP No. 21411 OF 2011 [Mahavir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.]:
39. The petitioner in this case is co-sharer to the extent of 2/9th share in the land measuring 161 kanals 10 marlas situated in the revenue estate of
village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil & district Rohtak, fully described in Para No. 1 of the writ petition. The petitioner entered into Collaboration
Agreement, executed GPA through which Sale Deed of his land was also executed in favour of respondent No. 11-Builder. The nature of relief,
factual and legal pleas taken by the petitioner in mis case are identical to those in CWP No. 19096 of 2011 [Sant Singh & Ors. v. State of
Haryana & Ors. J. The stand taken by different respondents is also identical. No compensation in respect of the acquired land was received by the
petitioner.
CWP No. 23331 OF 2011 [Daya Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]:
40. Petitioners are co-owners of the land fully described in Para No. 1 of the writ petition situated in the revenue estate of village Garhi Bohar,
Tehsil & District Rohtak. The above stated land has also been acquired vide impugned notifications, followed by Award No. 1 dated 6th April,
2005. The petitioners were statedly approached by respondent No. 11-Builder-cum-Developer, to enter into Agreement to Sell or a
Collaboration Agreement for consideration but they refused. The petitioners also refused to receive compensation for their acquired land. While
questioning the acquisition of their land on various grounds, in particular, alleging mala-fide and colourable exercise of power, the petitioners have
alleged discrimination against them on the plea that the land in their neighbourhood belonging to several owners who executed Agreements in
favour of the Builder has been released but not owned by them though they are also similarly placed.
41. Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 7 has filed written statement on behalf of State of Haryana and respondents No. 3 and 7
maintaining that the land was acquired strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the objections filed by the petitioners u/s 5A were
duly considered by the State Government along with report sent by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is averred that the possession of the
petitioners'' land was handed-over to the Estate Officer, HUDA on the date of award, i.e., 6th April, 2005, hence the writ petition filed after six
years of passing of the Award is liable to be dismissed in the light of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Swaika Properties [P]
Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2008[4] SCC 694. The allegations of discrimination or pick and choose policy have been denied. The claim of the
petitioners for the release of their residential houses/structures has also been controverted on the plea that they raised unauthorised construction
evading conversion and development charges and in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of
Unregulated Development Act, 1963. It has been highlighted that the land of only those owners have been released who entered into Collaboration
Agreements with respondent No. 11-Builder.
42. The Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rohtak-respondent No. 8 has also filed a short reply-affidavit explaining that though the acquired
land is a part of the Municipal area declared vide separate Government notifications but the Municipal Council is not the beneficiary of the subject
acquisition.
43. Respondent No. 11 has filed two reply/affidavits dated 12th March, 2012 and dated 22nd September, 2012, disputing the petitioners'' locus
standi for challenging the licence or release of land or the sale deeds executed by various landowners in its favour. In both the affidavits,
respondent No. 11 has reiterated its objections and reply on merits, which it has taken in its two affidavits filed in CWP No. 19096 of 2011.
44. The Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana and the District Town Planner, Rohtak have also filed their
respective written statements reiterating the averments made by them in their written statements filed in CWP No. 19096 of 2011 [Sunt Singh &
Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.].
45. The petitioners have filed a joint replication to the written statements filed by the different respondents reiterating their allegations that the
acquisition of their land is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and has not been made for any public purpose.
CWP No. 2631 OF 2013 [Virender Mahreja & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.]:
46. The Petitioners are owners of small sized plots measuring 288, 372 or 220 square yards which they purchased before issuance of Section 4
notification. The plots of the petitioners are situated in the revenue estate of village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil & District Rohtak and are comprised in
Khasra Nos. given in Para No. 1 of the writ petition. Their plots have also been acquired vide impugned notifications, followed by Award No. 1
dated 6th April, 2005. The petitioners were statedly approached by respondent No. 11-Builder-cum-Developer to enter into Agreement to Sell or
a Collaboration Agreement for consideration but they refused. The petitioners also refused to receive compensation for their acquired land. While
questioning the acquisition of their land on various grounds, in particular, alleging mala-fide and colourable exercise of power, the petitioners have
also built up the ground of discrimination on the plea that in their neighbourhood several owners executed Agreements in favour of the Builder
whose land has been released by the State but that of the petitioners has not been released though they are similarly placed persons.
47. Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates Department Rohtak, has filed written statement on behalf of State of Haryana and respondents No.
3 and 7 maintaining that the land was acquired strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the objections filed by the petitioners u/s
5A were duly considered by the State Government along with report sent by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is averred that the possession of
the petitioners'' land was handed-over to the Estate Officer, HUDA on the date of award, i.e., 6th April, 2005, hence the writ petition filed after
eight years of passing of the Award is liable to be dismissed in the light of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Swaika Properties
[P] Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2008[4] SCC 694. The allegations of discrimination or pick and choose policy have been denied. It has been
highlighted that the land of those owners have been released who entered into Collaboration Agreements with respondent No. 11-Builder.
CWP No. 2654 OF 2013 [Chhanno Devi @ Dhanno Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.}:
48. Petitioners are owners in possession of the land measuring 49 kanals 9 marlas fully described in Para No. 1 of the writ petition situated in the
revenue estate of village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil & District Rohtak. The above stated land has been acquired vide impugned notifications, followed by
Award No. 1 dated 6th April, 2005. The petitioners were statedly approached by respondent No. 11-Builder-cum-Developer to enter into
Agreement to Sell or a Collaboration Agreement for consideration but they refused. The petitioners also refused to receive compensation for their
acquired land. While questioning the acquisition of their land on various grounds, in particular, alleging mala-fide and colourable exercise of power,
the petitioners have also built up the ground of discrimination on the plea that the land in their neighbourhood belonging to several owners has been
released as they executed Agreements in favour of the Builder but not that of the petitioners though they are similarly placed.
49. Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates Department Rohtak, has filed written statement on behalf of State of Haryana and respondents No.
3 and 7 maintaining that the land was acquired strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the objections filed by the petitioners u/s
5A were duly considered by the State Government along with report sent by the Land Acquisition Collector. It is averred that the possession of
the petitioners'' land was handed-over to the Estate Officer, HUDA on the date of award, i.e., 6th April, 2005, hence the writ petition filed after
eight years of passing of the Award is liable to be dismissed in the light of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Swaika Properties
[P] Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2008[4] SCC 694. The allegations of discrimination or pick and choose policy have been denied. It has been
highlighted that the land of those landowners have been released who entered into Collaboration Agreements with respondent No. 11-Builder.
50. It emerges out from the facts narrated above that the writ petitioners in at-least five of the cases did not enter into any Collaboration or Sale
Agreement with respondent No. 11-Builder-cum-Developer, nor they executed any Sale Deed. None of them has received compensation also. In
the remaining cases, the petitioners entered into Collaboration Agreements and also executed Agreements to Sell on receipt of consideration from
respondent No. 11. They have, however, not received any compensation from the State.
51. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record including the original record produced by the State
Government regarding grant of licences or the release of land in favour of respondent No. 11.
52. Brief notes containing written submissions given by some of the petitioners and respondent No. 11 too have been scanned. While the
petitioners have only reiterated their claim[s], the 11th respondent has submitted that [i] the writ petitions suffer from delay and latches; [ii] the
petitioners have abused the process of law and not approached the Court with clean hands; [iii] they had ""earlier challenged the acquisition"" but no
such allegations were made in their writ petitions; [iv] the factum of entering into Collaboration Agreement with respondent No. 11 though was
disclosed in the objections filed u/s 5A but has been concealed in these writ petitions; [v] the principles laid down by Hon''ble Supreme Court in
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, ; Meghmala and Others Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and
Others, ; Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, ; Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, and Rameshwari Devi and Others Vs. Nirmala
Devi and Others, deserve to be invoked against the petitioners; [vi] the mechanism of collaboration with colonizers has already been approved by
this Court; [vii] the petitioners are not aggrieved persons, hence have no locus-standi to approach this Court as they have lost every kind of right,
title, interest and possession in the land against valuable consideration; [viii] the Licence to develop a piece of land is a transferable instrument in
terms of Rule 17 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, for which permission was granted and thereafter only
Sale Deeds were executed, hence it is a valid transfer of title; [x] even a civil suit challenging the Sale Deed at this stage would be barred by
limitation; [xi] since the petitioners are raising a disputed claim of better title, the power of High Court under Article 226 to determine such
questions can not be invoked as held in Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs. U.P.F.C. Rajpur Road, Dehradun and Others, and in Godavari Sugar Mills
Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, ; [xii] the principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence do apply against the petitioners keeping
in view the decisions cited in the written submissions; [xiii] the inconsistent pleas and prayers made by the petitioners are hit by the doctrine of
election and the decisions cited in the written submissions in this regard are fully applicable; [xiv] the release orders passed by the State
Government are well protected u/s 48 of the 1894 Act; [xv] the State Government or HUDA due to various reasons, including the National
Housing Policy, have decided to infuse private capital in infrastructure; [xvi] this Court should refrain from interfering in policy decisions as the
scope of judicial review in such like matters is very limited; [xvii] the challenge to Haryana Act No. 20 of 2011 is wholly misconceived and there
being no inconsistency, the Act is duly protected within the constitutional framework including Article 13; and [xviii] a Full Bench of this Court in
Ram Murti Sarin and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, has ruled that if possession has not been taken by the Land Acquisition Collector
as per the Award, the State Government can allow the acquisition proceedings to lapse without publication of notification u/s 48 of the Act, if it is
no longer interested in acquisition of land.
53. Learned Advocate General, Haryana emphasised on the powers enjoined upon by the State u/s 48 of the 1894 Act and contended that the
Government is competent to withdraw from the acquisition at any time before taking possession of the land. He relied upon a decision of the
Hon''ble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay and Others Vs. Godrej and Boyce,
54. The following issues arise for our determination:--
[i] Whether the object behind the subject-acquisition was to achieve a bona-fide public purpose or to use it as a cloak for the private benefit of
Builder-cum-Developer?
[ii] Whether the power of ''eminent domain'' has been exercised in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution?
[iii] Whether it is lawful to enter into ''Agreement to Sell'' or ''Collaboration Agreement'' in respect of the land under acquisition and can an
instrument of sale be executed in respect of such land?
[iv] Whether a writ court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is competent to annul a sale-transaction executed in
violation of and on playing a fraud on the Statute?
[v] Whether the orders granting Licenses or releasing the acquired land have been passed in favour of 11th respondent in accordance with
provisions of 1975 State Act?
[vi] Whether the petitioners have got locus standi to challenge the ''licences'' or the orders of release of the acquired land in favour of respondent
No. 11?
[vii] Whether writ petitions suffer from inordinate delay and latches?
Issue No. [i] and [ii]:
55. The land measuring 441.11 acres was unequivocally acquired for the development of ""residential/commercial Sector 27-28 at Rohtak'' under
the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority"". According to the official respondents, the
total area of the acquired land was substantially reduced from 850.88 Acres to 441.11 Acres while issuing Section 6 notification as re-survey was
conducted under directions of the Competent Authority and the residential houses/other structures were ordered to be released as a matter of
policy.
56. Section 13 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 [in short 1977 Act] says that objects of the Authority are ""to promote
and secure development of all or any or the areas comprised in an urban area""......and for that purpose the Authority has the power to acquire,
hold, plan, develop and dispose off land and other property. Its Section 14 enables the acquisition of land under the 1894 Act on payment of
compensation by HUDA and such acquired land can then be disposed off in accordance with Section 15 of the 1977 Act by way of auction,
allotment or otherwise as per the Regulations formulated under the Act. Regulation 4 of the Haryana Urban Development [Disposal of Land and
Buildings] Regulations, 1978 relates to fixation of tentative price/premium for the sale or lease of the land/building by allotment and it says that ""the
tentative price/premium for the disposal of land or building by the Authority shall be such as may be determined by the authority taking into
consideration the cost of land, estimated cost of development, cost of buildings and other direct and indirect charges, as may be determined by the
Authority from time to time"" [Emphasis applied]. There is, thus, no element of profiteering in the allotment price to be determined by HUDA for its
developed sites. HUDA as per its consistent policy allots residential plots through Draw of Lots, while commercial and institutional sites are sold
by way of public auction. HUDA Regulations do provide reservation of residential plots for various categories like the Economically Weaker
Section, Scheduled Castes, Defence Personnel, Government Employees, Differently-abled persons etc. It is, thus, inarguable that so long as the
purpose of acquisition in the instant case was for the development of two residential Sectors in the Urban Area of Rohtak by HUDA, such
''notified public purpose'' fell within the ambit of Section 3[f][ii] and [iv] of 1894 Act.
57. What happened after the publication of the declaration u/s 6 of the 1894 Act on 08th April, 2003, however, unfolds an altogether different
story. Section 6[3] says that issuance of notification under that Section ""shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public
purpose.....and after making such declaration, the appropriate Government may acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing"". Section 11A
mandates that the Collector has to pass the Award u/s 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration u/s 6 of the
Act. It was obvious that the Award in the instant case was required to be passed by the Collector before 7th April, 2005. The farmer-landowners
held their breath for almost two years during which neither they could alienate, mortgage or transfer their land in any manner, nor the Award was
passed till the last date of statutory period came very close. The notices u/s 9 were issued only on 4th March, 2005 calling upon the farmers to
appear before the Collector on 22nd March, 2005 for the determination of compensation of their land.
58. Meanwhile respondent No. 11 who is stated to be a subsidiary Company of yet another Builder-cum-Developer known as ''Sun-City'',
suddenly surfaced and started entering into ''Collaboration Agreements'' or ''Agreements to Sell'' with the affected farmers. So much sure and
confident was the 11th respondent that on 21st and 22nd March, 2005 it even applied for the grant of licences for the land measuring more than
168 acres out of the notified land measuring 441.11 Acres and also paid full amount of sale consideration to the landowners.
59. Awards No. 1, 2 and 3 were admittedly passed on 06th April, 2005 i.e. a day before the expiry of the statutory period of two years. As per
the categoric stand taken by the Land Acquisition Collector in the written statement initially filed, he took over the possession of land and handed-
over it to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak on that very day, i.e., 06th April, 2005. The official record also substantiates this plea of the
respondents. On doing so, the acquired land stood vested absolutely in the State Government, free from all encumbrances by virtue of Section 16
of the 1894 Act.
60. Most pertinently, there was neither a Government policy nor any provision in the 1975 Act at that time which stated that the application for the
grant of licence could be entertained even at the behest of a person whose land stood acquired and had vested in the State free from all
encumbrances. The policy decision relied upon by the State Government authorities was taken on 26th October, 2007 and had not even been
conceived at the time when Licences were granted to 11th respondent or the persons who claimed to have collaborated as they too had lost the
title on 6th April, 2005 when the Award came to be passed.
61. The Government Files pertaining to the grant of licence or release of land in favour of 11th respondent have been deceptively captioned as if
the entire initiative to seek the release of land is at the instance of the farmer-owners of the acquired land. That very record, however, falsifies this
facade. The application dated 21st March, 2005 [receipt No. 2461] is on the letter-head of respondent No. 11. It is signed by one of its
Directors. Form ''LC-I'', however, earlier thumb impressions of previous owners along with the attested copies of ''Power of Attorney'' and
''Collaboration Agreements'' executed by them in favour of respondent No. 11. The Application Forms refer to deposits of demand drafts of lacs
of rupees. Who paid that requisite fee or statutory charges? Was it by the farmers whose land already stood acquired and who had not received
even a single penny of compensation? OR was it deposited by respondent No. 11? The copies of Demand Drafts answer this query as every
penny was deposited by respondent No. 11 only. The illiterate or semi-illiterate farmers had no knowledge except that their land was under
acquisition and there was a Builder willing to pay them a price which was much more than the Government compensation.
62. It is quite unfortunate and misleading that every relevant Government file recites, say for example, that ""Shri Surat Singh and other individuals
have submitted request on LC-I for setting up of Residential Plotted Colony over an area measuring 84.04 Acres.......the applicants have
deposited an amount of Rs. 34,09140/- towards Scrutiny Fee and Rs. 42,02000/- towards Licence Fee''. The said application was dealt with first
time vide office note dated 19th August, 2005 yet no where it is disclosed that the land had already been acquired, award passed and it stood
vested in the State free from all encumbrances. In the subsequent notings, the so-called ''applicants'' disappeared and all the Officers starting from
the District Town Planner onwards, have worked over-board to contribute in favour of the claim of 11th respondent.
63. Not even a single note by any officer refers to the ''public purpose'' so loudly professed in the notifications dated 11th April, 2002 and 8th
April, 2003 for acquiring the land. The factum of passing of the Award has been noticed in the office note dated 17th March, 2006 [Page 34 of
the file] but that very note counters it by saying that when the applicants applied for the grant of licence, ""the land was under acquisition
proceedings and award was not announced and even now compensation offered has yet not been received by any of the landowners"". A report
was then obtained from the Department to intimate the status of possession.
64. Meanwhile, the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak sent the report dated 17th March, 2006 claiming that there were Rabi crops standing, hence
only paper possession was taken and physical possession was still with the landowners. Armed with this report, the Director, Town and Country
Planning put up a note on 22nd April, 2006 that a self-contained note be put up after integrating all the facts for the purpose of invoking Section
48[1] of the 1894 Act. After a series of Office Notes by different officers, each favouring respondent No. 11, legal opinion was also sought from
the office of Legal Remembrancer, Haryana.
65. The Office of LR, Haryana is headed by a fairly senior District & Sessions Judge, duly assisted by one or more Judicial Officers. It, however,
appears that there are non-Judicial Officers too serving in that office. The file seeking ''legal opinion'' on the claim of respondent No. 11 for the
grant of licence or release of land was put up before a non-judicial officer in the rank of Deputy LR who opined that since the landowners were
allowed to retain possession on account of standing crops, they ""would be deemed to be in possession of the acquired land"". Regarding the vacant
land, his opinion was that the same would absolutely vest in the Government, free from all encumbrances. The claim of respondent No. 11 was
then favourably put up and got approved from the Competent Authority on 23rd May, 2006.
66. The Government Files containing hundreds of pages led the decision-making authority only to one direction, namely, that the claim put-forth by
respondent No. 11 was just and right. Several material facts were conveniently over-looked or ignored. The senior functionaries of the State, for
the reasons best known to them, indulged in suppression of relevant information and failed to assist the worthy Chief Minister to arrive at a fair and
just decision in public interest and in a dispassionate manner.
67. Similar procedure and practice was adopted by the State apparatus while granting the remaining licences or releasing the land in favour of
respondent No. 11.
68. From the facts noticed above, there can be no different conclusion but to infer that though the proposal to acquire land for the development of
Urban Sectors at Rohtak was mooted, approved and was taken to a logical conclusion for a bona-fide public purpose. However, during the
interregnum and before passing the Award, an unholy nexus to promote the private interest of respondent No. 11 sprouted which de-railed the
public purpose of acquisition and led to the misuse of power u/s 48 of the 1894 Act. Respondent No. 11 exploited the moments of suspense and
succeeded in entering into distress-sale agreements with the desperate owners who were sandwiched and had no other choice but to give in for a
comparatively better offer.
69. To say that the landowners entered into varied contracts with Respondent No. 11 voluntarily, willingly or without undue pressure is too farcical
to be believed. There is a natural and conventional bondage between the land and its tiller. A farmer seldom sells the land save for the compelling
reasons. Agricultural being their only source of survival, the loss of land is a terrible nightmare for any farmer. The Land Acquisition Collectors
never assess the compensation as per actual market value of the land and the only yardstick to be followed is the Collector''s rate fixed for the
purpose of registration charges. The farmer can not sell the land in open market as on issuance of Section 4 notification all sale transactions are
invariably banned. These moments of fear and anxiety must have prompted respondent No. 11 to indulge in the best bargain. For the farmers the
offer was like ''better you give the wool than the whole sheep''. There was no free trade for the farmers. Their choice was limited : to accept the
State compensation at the Collector''s rate or a better offer given by State sponsored private builder. There was inequality of bargaining power.
The determination of land value was not at all in the control of farmers. They were groping in the dark. They had no clue that the land will be
released. They accepted the unreasonable and unfair unilateral terms and lost their land.
70. The sale price of the land was determined by respondent No. 11 and not by the market forces. Given a choice between retaining their land or
selling it to the Builder for the offered-price, not a single farmer would have agreed to sell it. The circumstances forced the landowners to accede to
the offer made by 11th respondent made. It is a proven case of unconscionable bargain exerted through undue influence and fraud, both. The
sample ''agreements'' on record truly reveal that illiterate/semi-literate farmers were asked to sign the documents on dotted-lines forcing them to sell
out most of their ancestral holdings. The en-mass ''Agreements'' conclusively belie the plea of need-based bona-fide sales. How the Courts should
deal with the unconscionable contracts which are injurious to public good and public interest, has been eloquently answered by the Supreme Court
in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited and Another Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another, saying that......Article 14 of the
Constitution guarantees to all persons equality before the law and the equal protection of laws........This principle is that the courts will not enforce
and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered
into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power......For instance, the above principle will apply where the inequality of bargaining
power is the result of the great disparity in the economic strength of the contracting parties.........It will also apply where a man has no choice or
rather no meaningful choice, but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a prescribed or standard form or to accept a set of
rules as part of the contract, however unfair, unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rules maybe......
71. If there were good and justifiable reasons, though conspicuously missing from the record, for not proceeding with the subject-acquisition, the
State Government as a guardian of people''s rights could shelve off its previous plan to develop Sector 27-28 at Rohtak through the State agency
and release the land to its owners. It, however, did not do so. Rather, the State unleashed the threat of its mighty power under the ruse of eminent
domain and created a psycho-fear in the mind of poor farmers that they would, if did not agree, lose the land and its value both.
72. We may now also deal with yet another vigorously argued plea that the land was as a matter of fact released from acquisition or most of the
licences were granted to respondent No. 11 under the directions of this Court. The official respondents in the written statements have repeatedly
referred to CWP Nos. 14451 to 14453 of 2010 which were allowed by a learned Single Judge on 06th December, 2010 directing the State and
its authorities to extend the benefit of Section 48 of the 1894 Act to the landowners and grant them licences. It is pertinent to mention that while
CWP No. 14451 of 2010 was filed by M/s. Uddar Gaggan Properties Private Limited-respondent No. 11 along with some land-owners
represented it, in the 2nd case also the said Builder-cum-Developer was one of the writ petitioner and the other farmers were also impleaded
THROUGH THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER �SHRI SANJAY JAIN..."", namely, the authorised representative of respondent
No. 11. All the three writ petitions were, thus, filed by respondent No. 11 only. It is interesting to note that the learned Single Judge in his order
dated 06th December, 2010 has said that ""Two sets of replies have been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2. While admitting the entire factual
averments made in the writ petitions regarding the ownership of the acquired land by the petitioners, their applications for grant of licence and
release of the part of the land and grant of licence to the petitioners in CWP No. 14452 of 2010 and 14451 of 2010, it is stated that possession of
the land where the Rabi crop was standing could not be taken over by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak/Land Acquisition Collector, Hissar as
the land owners were granted time upto 30.4.2005 at their request. Subsequently, the matter was referred to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak
who vide his report dated 17.3.2006 confirmed the possession of the land owners upto October, 2005. Thereafter on account of status quo issued
by the High Court in CWP Nos. 1893 and 1894 of 2006, possession of tracts of land for which licence was granted could not be taken over from
the petitioners.
(Emphasis applied).
73. It may be seen that ''the public purpose'' of acquisition, the factum of taking possession of the acquired land on 06th April, 2005, non-
existence of any Government policy or a provision in the Statute to grant Licence for an acquired land etc. etc. were not disclosed before the
learned Single Judge. Only selective information convenient to the cause of respondent No. 11 was brought on record. There is a serious doubt on
the nature of contest given by the official respondents who took it like a ''friendly match''. The collusion between respondent No. 11 and the senior
functionaries is writ large in the fact that despite unambiguous opinion given by the Advocate General, Haryana that it was a fit case to file Letters
Patent Appeal, the Department secured a contrary opinion from the office of LR, Haryana and allowed the judgment of learned Single Judge to
attain finality. In this entire process, the Constitutional Office of the Advocate General was also belittled. We fail to understand as how the opinion
given by the Advocate General could be overruled by securing a tailor-made opinion from an inferior authority.
74. The names of landowner-farmers were kept at the forefront in the Government files or before the Court to hide the identity of respondent No.
11 wherever possible and to give a misleading impression as if the real beneficiaries of State largess were the small time landowners. The fact of
the matter is that the farmers have not got even an inch of the released land, which has been formally transferred in favour of respondent No. 11
through the Sale Deeds executed in January, 2007, again by General Power of Attorney holders of the farmers, namely, authorised representatives
of respondent No. 11. The only irresistible conclusion can be that the farmers stood ousted from the scene since March/April, 2005 and it was the
11th respondent who masqueraded for them, otherwise where was the occasion for the landowners to execute Sale Deeds on 25th January, 2007
through the Power of Attorneys obtained from them in March, 2005?
Issues No. [iii] and [iv]:
75. The question of validity of Agreements to Sell or consequential Sale Deeds executed in respect of the land notified under Sections 4 and 6 of
the 1894 Act or in relation to which the Award has also been passed, is no longer res-integra. We may usefully refer to the decision in Gian Chand
Vs. Gopala and Others, . It lays down that though notification u/s 4[1] is not conclusive, the owner of the land is prevented from encumbering the
land and such encumbrance does not bind the Government. It has been further held that when declaration u/s 6 is published and acquisition is
proceeded with, it would be conclusive evidence of public purpose and the Government is entitled to have the land acquired and take possession
free from all encumbrances and that ""any sale transaction or encumbrances created by the owner after the publication of notification u/s 4[1]
would, therefore, be void and does not bind the Mahavir and Another Vs. Rural Institute, Amravati and Another, , reiterates that the sale made by
the owner after publication of notification u/s 4[1J does not bind the State and when possession of acquired land taken by the State was handed-
over to the beneficiary of acquisition, such beneficiary became the absolute owner of the land. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman
and another Vs. M/s. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd. Lucknow and others, also it was re-stated that alienation of land subsequent to notification u/s 4[1]
would be void and the purchaser does not acquire any right, title or interest in the land.
76. The principles expounded in Meera Sahni Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Others, , with reference to the provisions of Delhi Lands [Restrictions
on Transfer] Act, 1972 read with Land Acquisition Act, 1894, that Sale Deeds in respect of a land under acquisition are null and void, would be
equally attracted to the facts of the case in hand as the stereo-typed Sale Deeds have very conveniently concealed and suppressed all material
facts, most importantly pertaining to the acquisition of sold land. The Sale Deeds dated 19th January, 2007 recite that ""the vendor is the lawful,
sole, absolute and recorded owner of the land...."" It is further mentioned that ""Vendors assures the Vendee that the said lands is free from all kinds
of encumbrances such as prior sale, gift, mortgage, will, trust, exchange.......acquisition litigation, stay order........
77. In Meera Sahni''s case [supra], the Hon''ble Supreme Court further held that:--
17. When a piece of land is sought to be acquired, a notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act is required to be issued by the State Government
strictly in accordance with law. The said notification is also required to be followed by a declaration to be made u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act
and with the issuance of such a notification any encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer made after the issuance of such a notification
would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on the government. A number of decisions of this Court have recognized the aforesaid
proposition of law wherein it was held that subsequent purchaser cannot challenge acquisition proceedings and also the validity of the notification
or the irregularity in taking possession of the land after the declaration u/s 6 of the Act.
(Emphasis applied).
78. The Vendors and the Vendee both had full and informed knowledge of the fact that the transacted land had since been acquired and Award
also passed. The Vendee was aware of the fact that the Vendors did not possess a clean title, yet the Sale Deeds were presented and got
registered, after about two years of the passing of the Awards, on 06th April, 2005. Every such transaction in respect of the acquired land was
indeed null and void having no existence in the eyes of law.
79. Learned Advocate General, Haryana raised a preliminary objection that the foremost relief sought in these writ petitions is to declare these null
and void and to set aside the sale deeds, for which the petitioners have got an effective alternative remedy of filing civil suits. He submitted that
most of the petitioners are party to the sale transactions and are estopped by their act and conduct from invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of
this Court. We are, however, not impressed by the contention. We say so for the reasons that firstly there are several writ petitions in which the
petitioners have not entered into any Collaboration or Agreements to Sell nor have they executed the Sale Deeds. They have successfully made out
a case of hostile discrimination meted out to them as only those lands have been released for which respondent No. 11 managed to secure
Collaboration or Agreements to Sell. If it were a case of release of land in favour of the landowners as projected in the written statements, we see
no distinguishable reason to deny such benefit to those landowners who did not enter into any agreement with respondent No. 11. Secondly, it is
not a case of challenging the Sale Deeds for the breach of any bilateral terms and conditions or on the conventional grounds where a question of
fact has to be proved. The incidental relief to declare the Sale Deeds as null and void is an offshoot of the broader issues raised by the petitioners
including those hovering around the systematic colourable exercise of power by the State apparatus. A Constitutional Court while performing its
solemn duty as a Trustee of the fundamental rights of the citizens shall thus be well within its right to lift the veil and unmask the private object
behind an acquisition carried out in disregard to the mandate of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution.
80. The chain of events starting from the motivated delay in passing the award so as to demoralise the farmers and to give ample opportunity to
respondent No. 11 to enter the field and arouse the impatience in the panic-stricken farmers contain inherent contradiction in the State-action as on
one hand applications for the grant of licences were entertained and on the other the Award being passed simultaneously; projection on the files as
if the land was to be released to the farmers, non-disclosure of correct facts in the collusive litigation etc. etc., sufficiently establish that the statutory
mechanism was hijacked to serve the interest of respondent No. 11 and the veil of ''public purpose'' was used to mislead the affected landowners.
81. Power of land acquisition vested under the 1894 Act could be invoked only in public interest and not for creating land-bank in favour of
respondent No. 11 through distress sales. The State can not force the landowners to surrender their title in favour of and at a price to be dictated
by a private beneficiary. The notified public purpose was only a ruse to enable respondent No. 11 to purchase the land at the lowest possible price
for maximizing the profiteering. It is so well settled that an action to be taken in a particular manner as provided by a Statute, must be taken, done
or performed in the manner prescribed or not at all. The rule laid down by the Privy Council in AIR 1936 253 (Privy Council) that ""where a power
is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all"", has been approved and further expanded by the
Apex Court in a catena of decisions. When an action is taken in furtherance of explicit power given by a Statute, the legitimacy of invoking such
power shall depend entirely upon the extent of achieving the net-end object for which the Statute enables the exercise of such power. These
principles have been violated in whole-some in the case in hand as the pretended public purpose was neither intended nor was finally achieved.
Issue No. [v]:--
82. There is too much hype created by the official respondents with reference to the legislative Scheme of the 1975 State Act. At the cost of
repetition, it may be mentioned that applications for the grant of Licences were moved mostly in March/April, 2005 though respondent No. 11
continued dropping in such applications in the year 2006 also. All the Licences were issued after passing of the Award in April, 2005 and before
the execution of Sale Deeds in January, 2007. The Builder did not own an inch of land, yet every licence was addressed to it and sent with a
specific enclosure that respondent No. 11 was the sole owner of the licensed and released land. The issuance of licence, in our considered view,
was a fraud played on the policy behind the 1975 Act. We say so for the reasons that Section 2[d] of the Act defines ''colonizer'' to mean ""an
individual, company or association, body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, owning land for converting it into a colony....."". Section 2[k]
defines the expression ''owner'' to include a person in whose favour a lease of land in an urban area for not less than 99 years has been granted.
Section 3[1] mandatorily requires that ""any owner desiring to convert his land into a colony"" can make an application for the grant of Licence. Sub-
Section [2] obligates the Director to inquire into ""title to the land"". Similarly, Rule 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas
Rules, 1976 requires an owner of the land desirous of setting up a colony to apply along with requisite documents including ""copy or copies of all
title deeds..."". A mis-directed reliance has been placed on Rule 17 of these Rules which says that ""the Colonizer shall not transfer the licence
granted to him under Rule 12 to any other person without the prior approval of the Director"". It has already been dealt with in extenso that the true
owners were left with no choice but to enter into the Collaboration Agreements with the Builder, who was so sure of obtaining the licences and
getting the land released that he ousted the owners from the consequential benefits of the licences in 2005 itself by paying them ""entire sale
consideration"" for the land which had already vested in the State free from all encumbrances.
83. The Legislative Scheme of the 1975 Act to encourage private colonisers for the regulated urbanisation is laudable. But such coloniser has to
first own the requisite chunk of land and then seek a Licence under the Act. The land has to be arranged through lawful means including such sale
transactions where a willing buyer pays a reasonable and agreed sale consideration to a willing seller. Here is an apparently maneuvered land
acquisition with no commitment to achieve any ''public purpose'' followed by multiple documentation so as to create eligibility for a Licence under
the 1975 Act. We hasten to add that nothing would have been wrong had the 11th respondent bought land in the open market and then got a
Licence under the 1975 Act.
84. It is pertinent to refer to the consistent stance taken by the respondents before this Court that no licence can be granted in respect of a land
which is under the acquisition proceedings. For the ready reference, we may refer to the plea taken by the respondent Town and Country Planning
Department in Sunnyvilla Cooperative House Building Society Ltd, v. State of Haryana & Ors. CWP No. 113 32 of 2000, dismissed by this
Court on 31.10.2013 observing as follows:--
(22).......We are thus of the view that the State Government rightly refused to grant Licence for the land which was not owned by Sunnyvilla
Society. The Licence sought by the Society in collaboration with private Builder-cum-Developer could not be prioritized as it was against larger
public interest. Similarly, Saraswati Kunj Society cannot grumble against the non-grant of Licence for its land measuring 91.5 acres for want of a
clear title. Admittedly, the Department granted Licence No. 3 of 1995 to it for the land measuring 115.86 acres and again Licence No. 1 of 2000
was granted for the land measuring 100.526 acres. Since the title qua the remaining land was under cloud and meanwhile it had been acquired for
the development of residential sectors 53 and 54 by HUDA, the petitioner-Saraswati Kunj Society who was already beneficiary of two Licences
cannot be permitted to allege discrimination against it.
85. Even the original owners were disabled to apply for licence as their title came under clouds after the initiation of acquisition process. In any
case their land was not free from encumbrances after the passing of the Award oh 06th April, 2005, hence no licence could be granted to them as
well. The 11th respondent was never the ''owner'' of the land within the meaning of 1975 Act, therefore it had no locus-standi to apply for the
licence. The very entertainment of its applications and grant of licence by the authorities was, thus, based upon self-serving interpretation of the
1975 Act in total disregard to its legislative policy and the object.
86. Repeated reference to Section 48[1] of the 1894 Act is also equally misconceived and misplaced. The Full Bench in Ram Murti Sarin''s case
[supra] says that if possession has not been taken by the Land Acquisition Collector as per the Award announced by it, the State Government can
allow the acquisition proceedings to lapse without any notification u/s 48 of the Act, if it is no longer interested in acquisition of land. Had the
official respondents followed the law in letter and spirit after arriving at the conclusion that the State was not interested in acquisition of land, the
one and only consequence ought to have been to allow the acquisition to lapse and resultant return of land to the original owners. Here is a case
where artificial reasons were created, the records were fudged with the aid of the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, to mislead the fact that the
possession of acquired land was not taken while announcing the Award. The responsible officers of the State Government, in their anxiety to help
out respondent No. 11, have completely overlooked the interest of landowners or of the General Public to whom thousands of plots could have
been allotted at a fairly low price through the aegis of HUDA.
Issues No. [vi] and [vii]:
87. There are two sets of petitioners, namely, those who entered into Collaboration or Agreements to Sell with respondent No. 11 and the others
who did not enter into such Agreements. The locus standi of the later category of petitioners can not be questioned by any stretch of imagination.
No delay can be attributed to them as the cause of action to allege and prove the discriminatory action[s] arose only when the licences were
granted and the land was released in favour of the private builder while refusing such benefit to those who did not succumb under the pressure
tactics of the authorities or respondent No. 11. The original records reveal that licences were granted to the respondent No. 11 as late as in the
year 2011 also and hence there is no fatal delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. Those of the petitioners who have entered
into Agreements with respondent No. 11, in our considered view, can not be denied the protection against malicious, arbitrary and unconstitutional
deprivation of their fundamental rights emanating from Articles 14 and 21 read with constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution.
These landowners were denied their jusdesponendi and were in a fix as to whether to surrender the land in favour of the State on payment of
compensation or execute the agreements in favour of respondent No. 11. Can it thus be just, fair and reasonable to assume that the agreements
were executed by them voluntarily? The unequal status of the farmers vis-�-vis the mighty power of State or the money power of respondent
No. 11, surely tilted the balance in favour of the latter. The principles of quitacet consentit, namely acquiescence or estoppel thus can not be
pressed into aid while deciding an issue between un-equals. Suffice it to observe that the distinction between the landowners who received sale
consideration from respondent No. 11 or those who did not receive compensation from the State or a penny from respondent No. 11 can be
suitably drawn by moulding the relief that the court may decide to grant.
88. The objection of delay or latches raised against the petitioners merits rejection at-least on two counts. Firstly, it is decipherable from the
Government record that the process of granting licences or releasing the land commenced in the year 2006 and continued till the year 2011. In
fact, till the last date of hearing, the official respondents, for the reasons best known to them, did not deem it necessary to bring it on record as to
how much land [out of 422.44 acres] has since been released in favour of respondent No. 11. It, however, appears from the submissions made at
the bar that a major chunk of land has now gone into the hands of respondent No. 11 in due course of time except a few patches where the
State/HUDA intends to develop ''public utilities'' to facilitate the said respondent. Secondly, no development whatsoever has been carried out till
date and it was informed that the land is still lying in its original form without any construction having been made.
89. In all fairness, it may be mentioned that learned counsel for the petitioners very passionately urged that the unholy nexus between senior officers
and respondent No. 11 needs to be probed by an independent agency. We do not find any reason to agree with the contention and are of the view
that since all the possible losses caused to the State exchequer due to misfeasance of the bureaucracy are being retrieved, there is no legal
necessity to go into this issue.
90. Similarly, we are also of the view that the issues raised by the petitioners with reference to the validity of provisions of Haryana Ceiling on Land
Holdings Act, 1972 need not be considered at this stage and the same are left open to be gone into in an appropriate case.
91. Having held so, the other crucial question that draws our immediate attention is the nature of relief. We are conscious of the fact that all the
aggrieved landowners are not before this Court. It is equally true that most of those who entered into agreements with respondent No. 11 and have
received consideration, are also not in Court. In a such like situation, this Court would have ordinarily quashed the subject-acquisition to the extent
it pertains to the land of writ-petitioners. We are, however, of the view that in the light of the conclusions drawn by us that the impugned acquisition
is a colourable exercise of power and abuse of the doctrine of eminent domain, it would be against all the canons of justice to allow most of the
part of the acquisition to sustain when it ultra-vires the provisions of 1894 Act, 1975 State Act and also defies the constitutional guarantee of
equality and fair play. Since the acquisition of land and subsequent grant of Licences or the release of land is a totally illegal exercise, the doctrine
of severability can not be invoked as there is no part of the State action that can be termed as legal or just to sustain or to segregate it from the
illegal part. An action which is unconstitutional, illegal, unjust and unfair in its entirety, can not be allowed to be clamped on the owners, who, for
whatever reasons, have not opted for redressal. Moreover, if such persons are satisfied with the action of the authorities, the relief can be
appropriately moulded to allow them to reap the fruits, if any.
92. The above drawn conclusion is in conformity with the principles enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on somewhat similar facts and
circumstances in Greater Noida Indusl. Devt. Auth. Vs. Devendra Kumar and Others, , where it has been ruled that:
We do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that quashing of the acquisition proceedings should have
been confined to those who had not accepted the amount of compensation. Once the High Court came to the conclusion that the acquisition of
land was vitiated due to want to good faith and the provisions of the 1894 Act had been invoked for a private purpose, there could not have been
any justification for partially sustaining the acquisition on the ground that some of the landowners or their transferees had accepted compensation
by entering into an agreement with the Authority. The situation in which the people belonging to this class are placed in the matter of acquisition of
their land leaves little choice to them but to make compromises and try to salvage whatever they can. Therefore, even though some persons may
not have resisted the acquisition and may have accepted the compensation by entering into agreements, it is not possible to find any fault in the
approach adopted by the High Court.
(Emphasis by us).
93. In the light of the discussion and for the reasons stated above, we allow these writ petitions in the following terms
[i] Since the subject acquisition neither intended nor has achieved its ''public purpose'', the notifications dated 11th April, 2002 and 8th April, 2003
issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are hereby quashed in entirety. As a result thereto, the subsequent awards
passed on 06th April, 2005 can not sustain and are consequently quashed;
[ii] As a necessary corollary, the licences granted to respondent No. 11-Builder-cum-Developer dated 12th June, 2006, 1st August, 2006, 1st
September, 2006 or issued thereafter, even if not brought on record but pertaining to the acquired land, are hereby declared null and void and
quashed;
[iii] Consequently, the release orders like dated 12th June, 2006 [P-28 and P-29] or any such like release orders pertaining to the land acquired
vide the notifications dated 11th April, 2002 and 08th April, 2003, passed in purported exercise of powers u/s 48[1] of the 1894 Act are hereby
quashed;
[iv] As a result of the declaration and directions issued at [ii] and [iii] above, the Sale Deeds executed in favour of respondent No. 11 on different
dates in January, 2007 in respect of the acquired land are declared to be null and void and non-existent in the eyes of law;
[v] Those landowners who have neither received compensation nor entered into any Collaboration or Agreements to Sell with respondent No. 11,
shall be restored with the possession of their respective land forthwith.
[vi] Those landowners who have received compensation but have not entered into any Collaboration or Agreements to Sell with respondent No.
11, shall also be returned their respective land subject to their deposit of the entire amount of compensation along with simple interest at the rate of
9% as prescribed u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The possession shall be restored in their favour within one week of refund of the
compensation amount;
[vii] Those landowners who have entered into Collaboration or Agreements to Sell with respondent No. 11, shall be given option to return the Sale
Consideration received by them from respondent No. 11 along with simple interest @ 7% per annum within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If any one of them has received compensation from the State, he/she shall be required to refund the
same in the manner as laid down for the landowners falling in direction No. [vi] above. On doing so, the possession of their acquired land shall be
restored to them within one week;
[viii] If any of the landowners falling in Category [vii] above fails to return the sale consideration to respondent No. 11 or the compensation amount
to the State, title of his/her land to that extent, shall stand transferred in favour of respondent No. 11;
[ix] If the landowners fail to return the consideration amount to the private Builder as directed above and Respondent No. 11 perfects its title qua
their land, the State Government would be free to grant Licence to the said respondent to the extent of such land, if so permissible under the 1975
Act;
[x] Respondent No. 11 shall be entitled to seek refund of the Licence fee, CLU or other statutory charges from the State, within a period of six
months but without any interest, to the extent and for the land which shall stand released in favour of the original owners;
[xi] There shall be cost of Rs. 50,000/- [Fifty Thousand] in each case on respondent No. 11 which it shall deposit within one month with [i]
Mediation and Conciliation Centre and [ii] Lawyers'' Welfare Fund of High Court Bar in equal share.
This order, however, shall not preclude the State from acquiring the subject-land afresh if so needed for a lawful public purpose.
