HC quashes Haryana Govt’s notifications to acquire pvt land in Faridabad

In a scathing indictment of the Haryana Government’s persistent and arbitrary attempts to acquire the same land despite repeated judicial intervention, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed notifications issued in 2004 and 2005 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The court also ordered exemplary compensation of Rs 5 lakh costs to be paid to the petitioner by the government for what it termed as the misuse of eminent domain.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri ruled that the government’s actions amounted to “excessive and repeated harassment” of petitioner Umesh Kumar Madhok, whose land in Faridabad had been subjected to multiple acquisition attempts since 1962.

The court found that despite previous judicial pronouncements quashing earlier acquisitions, the state had continued its attempts, demonstrating a pattern of mala fide intent and disregard for the rule of law.

The land – four kanals and eight marlas – was purchased by the petitioner’s grandfather, a displaced person from West Pakistan, and was being used for industrial purposes. The first acquisition attempt was made in 1962. Subsequent notifications were issued in 1966, 1971, 1980, and 1982, each of which was challenged and ultimately quashed by the high court and the Supreme Court.

Despite this, the Haryana Government issued fresh notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in 2004 and 2005 leading to the present petition. The petitioner argued that the land had been earmarked for commercial development in the Faridabad Master Plan and that the acquisition was arbitrary, particularly when similar land owned by private developers was being released for commercial use.

The Bench took strong exception to the repeated misuse of the state’s power of eminent domain, noting that the petitioner had already secured judicial relief multiple times but continued to be dragged into litigation.

The court was of the view that the state despite adverse judicial verdicts had shown scant regard for the rule of law and fundamental property right. This persistent attempt to deprive the petitioner of his lawful possession was not just arbitrary but reeked of malice.

The court also pointed out that the petitioner had not been granted an opportunity to present objections under Section 5-A of the Act, which violated the principles of natural justice.

The Haryana Government contended that the acquisition was for “public purpose” as part of the planned development. It further argued that previous judicial quashings did not prevent the government from issuing fresh acquisition notices if public interest so required.

The court, however, found the justification unconvincing, particularly in light of the fact that land belonging to private entities had been released for commercial development while the petitioner’s land was being singled out for acquisition.

Haryana Tribune