- (1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of appropriate direction to the respondents to release the land belonging to the petitioner situated in the revenue estate of Village Sarai Aurangabad, comprised in Khasra No. 16/20Min, measuring 2 Kanals and 4 Marias. A further prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to allot commercial plot to the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 4.11.1999 passed in CWP No. 7325 of 1998 (P-10), has also been made. It has been asserted that the Haryana Urban Development Authority-respondent No. 2 has conceded before this Court that the petitioner was entitled for allotment of commercial plot in lieu of acquisition of its land. It has also been prayed that the respondents be restrained from demolishing the building of the petitioner. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition may first be noticed. The petitioner had purchased land measuring 2 Kanals and 4 Marias, which is situated in the revenue estate of Village Sarai Aurangabad, vide sale deed dated 12.10.1987 (P-1). It applied for provisional registration certificate with the Director of Industries, Haryana, Chandigarh, as a Small Scale Unit. On 15.10.1987 the provisional registration certificate was granted. Likewise, the registration was renewed on 25.1.1988 (P-4). On 14.2.1989 (P-5), the Haryana Financial Corporation (HFC) extended the facility of loan to the petitioner and the building of the petitioner for the purposes of realising the Cess by the Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh was assessed. However, the land became subject matter of acquisition when notification dated 27.5.1995 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, "the Act") was issued for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of land as residential, industrial and commercial for pocket of Sector 1 and 2 in the area of village Aurangabad at Bahadurgarh, Hadbast No. 38 and Sarai Aurangabad. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act, however, declaration was issued on 24.5.1996. Thereafter notices under Section 9 were issued.
(2.) The petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 7325 of 1998 representing that it had been running a Flour Mill at Bahadugarh. The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous because the prayer made by the petitioner for allotment of a commercial site as an oustee was accepted. The Division Bench noticed that on 15.10.1999, the petitioner was found entitled for allotment of a residential plot measuring 250 square yards as per the policy of the State Government and allotment of plot in Sector 2, as and when floated, was to be considered on the request to be made by the petitioner. However, on the insistence of the counsel for the petitioner, the Division Bench further noticed that the petitioner as an oustee would be entitled to allotment of commercial site as per the policy as and when commercial areas are developed and plots are sold by auction. It has been specifically observed that the allotment of one such commercial site was to be made as per entitlement of the petitioner in terms of the policy provided the petitioner applies for the same within time. The aforesaid order dated 4.11.1999, passed by the Division Bench in CWP No. 7325 of 1998 has been placed on record (P-10).
(3.) The petitioner appears to have applied on 1.2.2000 and 26.9.2000 (P-11 & P-12). However, on 5.9.2003, the office of the Urban Estate, HUDA, Bahadurgarh issued a letter to the petitioner concerning release of land of Sector 2 and 9 connected with litigation. Accordingly, the land belonging to the petitioner was released and in that regard it was stipulated that the area of the land belonging to the petitioner which touches the boundary of road and green belt, would not be left out and it was to deposit the development charges proportionately by executing an agreement with the department. The total area left out was 600 square yards and the development charges of Rs. 10,500/- were to be deposited. The petitioner did not deposit either the development charges nor it executed the agreement as per the stipulation in the letter dated 5.9.2003 (P-13). However, in order to infuse fresh lease of life in the cause of action, which has arisen in 2003, an application has been sent to the Estate Officer, Bahadurgarh, on 15.11.2011 (P-14) asking him to supply a copy of the proforma agreement to be executed regarding release of land measuring 600 square yards as mentioned in the letter dated 5.9.2003 (P-13). We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length and are of the view that this petition is complete misuse of the process of the Court. It is evident from the perusal of the pleadings and documents on record that the status of the petitioner as an oustee was recognised by a Division Bench of this Court, as is evident from the judgment dated 4.11.1999 rendered in CWP No. 7325 of 1998 (P-10). However, the petitioner lost its status as oustee when their land was released on 5.9.2003 (P-13) and they were asked to deposit the development charges of Rs. 10,500/-. They were also required to execute an agreement with the department by stipulating that the area of their land which touches the boundary of road and green belt would not be released from acquisition and they were to deposit the development charges proportionately as of HUDA. However, nothing was done. Having lost the status as oustee, the petitioner is making an illegal prayer for allotment of a commercial site by asserting its status as oustee on the one hand and on the other the petitioner has not complied with the conditions notified in the order releasing its land from acquisition. The development charges of Rs. 10,500/- indicated in the order dated 5.9.2003, in respect of released area of 600 square yards have not been paid nor any agreement has been executed stipulating that if any area of its land touches the road and green belt then the same would not be released from acquisition and they were to deposit the development charges proportionately as of HUDA. In any case, no cause of action would survive after such a long delay and there is no explanation tendered for approaching this Court after more than eight years. It is well settled that the maximum limitation for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be more than the one prescribed for filing suit. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhai Lal Bhai, 1964 AIR(SC) 1006. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The cost be deposited with the Member Secretary, Haryana State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh, within a period of four weeks failing which the matter be listed again before this Court.;