HEMANT GUPTA - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present writ petition is to the notices dated 04.05.2012 (Annexures P-8 to P-17), whereby the petitioners have been given three days' time to remove the encroachments upon the land of Haryana Urban Development Authority. Brief facts, out of which the present writ petition arises, is that the petitioners claim to be in possession of land comprising in Khasra No.2052/1, described in the Jamabandi as 'shamlat deh'. The petitioners claimed that they have been given possession of the said shamlat land by the proprietors of three 'Panas' of village Bahadurgarh for their residence in the year 1991. It was on 12.05.1995, the State Government intended to acquire the land measuring 458.65 acres for development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area for Sector 9 and 9-A, Bahadurgarh. Notification under Section 6 of the Civil Writ Petition No. 8871 of 2012 2 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 10.05.1996. The acquisition has attained finality. It is also pointed out that a writ petition (CWP No.16399 of 1996) was filed by one Dharampal, challenging the aforesaid acquisition. The said writ petition was dismissed on 08.04.1999. However, in appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the authorities to consider the request of Dharampal for release of the land. It is in pursuance of the said direction, land measuring 200 Sq. yards of Dharampal has been released.
(2.) THE petitioners assert that they are similarly situated as Dharampal, therefore, they are also entitled to seek release of land in their occupation. We do not find any merit in the argument raised. The petitioners are unauthorized occupants, as the land is a shamlat as per the Jamabandi produced by the petitioners. Therefore, the proprietors of three 'Panas', from whom the petitioners are claiming to be in possession, were not competent to deliver the possession. Still further, the writ petition does not disclose the nature of possession even in respect of the petitioners i.e., whether licensee or a lessee. As per the notices, subject matter of challenge in the petition, the petitioners have encroached upon the land of Haryana Urban Development Authority. Since the petitioners are encroachers on the land which was subject matter of acquisition, the petitioners cannot claim indulgence from this Court after more than 15 years of acquisition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Hari Ram & another Vs. The State of Haryana and others, 2010 (3) SCC 621, to contend Civil Writ Petition No. 8871 of 2012 3 that the State Government cannot act in discriminatory manner in releasing land of the land owners.
(3.) THE said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. Dharampal was the owner of the suit land, who invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court soon after the acquisition proceedings were initiated but the petitioners are encroachers having no title over the suit land. THEy cannot claim any parity with an owner. Consequently, the present writ petition has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.;