- (1.) Leave granted. Principal question which has fallen for consideration is whether the power of the State to acquire land for a public purpose has been used in the present case to facilitate transfer of title of the land of original owners to a private builder to advance the business interest of the said builder which is not legally permissible. Further question is whether on admitted facts, the acquisition of land is entirely or partly for a private company without following the statutory procedure for the said purpose. Further question is how in the facts and circumstances relief could be moulded.
(2.) Vide notification dated 11th April, 2002, 850.88 acres of land was proposed to be acquired for residential/commercial Sector 27-28, Rohtak, Haryana by the Haryana Urban Development Authority under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 ('the 1977 Act'). However, the final notification dated 8th April, 2003 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the 1894 Act'), according to the impugned order of the High Court, was in respect of 441.11 acres. Award dated 6th April, 2005 was for 422.44 acres. Appellant Uddar Gagan Properties Limited ('the Builder') who is a Builder-cum-Developer entered into collaboration agreements with some of the farmers owners whose land was under acquisition on 02nd March, 2005 for development of a Colony in accordance with the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975('the 1975 Act'). The Builder made applications on and around 21st March, 2005 to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Chandigarh, Haryana for grant of licence to develop a colony on land covering about 280 acres. The licences were granted on and around 12th June, 2006 and corresponding land was released from acquisition. The licences were addressed to the owners but remitted to the builder. This was followed by execution of sale deeds in favour of the builder through power of attorney holder of the land owners.
(3.) It was on these undisputed facts that the High Court was called upon to examine the questions on a group of petition/s by the land owners which are framed in the impugned judgment as follows :- (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 300-A 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 -;