Libertatem Magazine

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Law Breaker Cannot Be Permitted To Get Any Relief From The Court By Performing An Act Contrary To The Provisions Of Law, dismisses all Writ Petitions

Contents of this Page

The case, Kajal vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 20 March 2020 relies on the petitioner invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and notification under Section 6 of the said Act.

The petitioner, an owner in possession of land situated within the Revenue Estate of village Jhajjar, Tehsil and District Jhajjar, purchased the land in the year 2010. She firstly constructed her residential house and a shop in which she later started her business with the name ‘Jai Durga Mobile House’. In the same premises, she constructed a godown and two new shops. The State Government, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act issued a notification for the acquisition of the land of the petitioner, for the purpose of development and utilisation of residential area in Sector 10, Jhajjar.

The petitioner filed an objection before the competent authority to release her residential house along with three shops and godown from the acquisition, however, it was set aside without giving any reason for the same. The petitioner even challenged the order passed by Secretary-cum-Director General, Urban Estates Department, Haryana, vide which, the request of the petition was rejected, arbitrarily and in violation of the State Government policies.

The counsel for the petitioner pleaded

  • The aforesaid notification was not published in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the law, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
  • The petitioner was arbitrarily discriminated, while the constructed houses of the other similarly placed persons were released from the acquisition of the competent authority.
  • The petitioner constructed the house in the year 2010 and the notification came out in the year 2011.
  • Hence, there is a challenge to aforesaid notification and impugned order with further relief to direct the respondent to release the land and house/ shops/ godown of the petitioner.
  • The counsel, giving reference to Sukhdev Singh & Ors. V The State of Haryana & Ors., pleaded that the constructed portion of the house should be released.

The respondent counsel pleaded

  • The land in question, along with other lands was acquired for the public purpose, in accordance with the provision of the act.
  • Petitioner(s) was/were given an opportunity to file objections under Section 5(A) and they filed the same. Objections were made and they were given an opportunity of hearing.
  • The land was already notified as to the controlled area under Section 4(1)(a) of the Punjab Scheduled Road and Controlled Area Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963.
  • The petitioner’s claim to release the land is on the ground that the other lands have already been released and not on what the actual matter is.
  • The land of the petitioner was lying vacant until the notification came.
  • The alleged construction was raised in violation of the provision of the Act of 1963, it is notified as ‘constructed area’ under the said Act – meaning: the construction is illegal and cannot be granted relief.
  • No charge of land usage certificate was taken by the petitioners before raising the aforesaid construction.
  • The petitioner cannot claim parity, pleaded, after re-survey, it was decided to provide one plot of the petitioner. It was pleaded by the counsel that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Article 30 of Constitution

Court’s Observations & Judgements

  • In the present writ petition, the petitioner has failed to establish that the notification under Section 4 and Section 6 was not issued in accordance with the provision of law.
  • Only those requests for release of land from the acquisition are considered by the State Government under Section 5(A), where structures were constructed prior to the notification under Section 4 and they are inhabited and used by the owner for his evidence.
  • One cannot be permitted to take advantage of what’s wrong.
  • The case of the petitioner was different from others. Their land was required by the Government for the widening of roads and green belt. In the light of the above. The petitioner has failed to prove the plea of discrimination.

Hence, being bereft of merit, all the writ petitions were dismissed. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author