- (1.) The petitioners have approached this court impugning the order dated 14.6.2013 (Annexure P-20), passed by the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana, Public Health Engineering Department, Panchkula, whereby the claim of petitioner No. 2 for appointment in terms of the Policy for Rehabilitation and Resettlement of Land Owners Land Acquisition Oustees (hereinafter referred to as 'the policy') dated 9.11.2010, was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1-Jagdish Rai @ Jagdish Chander was owner of total land measuring 26 kanals and 16 marlas comprised in Rect. No. 30, Killa No. 21/2/1(2-4), 22/1(0-6), Rect. No. 31, Killa No. 25/2(0-6) and Red. No. 46, Killa No. 1(8-0), 2(8-0) and 3(8-0), situated in village Bhodia Khera, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. He transferred 8 kanals of land comprised in Rect. No. 46, Killa No. 3(8-0) in favour of his mother-Smt. Shanti Devi vide registered gift deed dated 24.4.2006. Petitioner No. 1 was left with 18 kanals and 16 marlas of land, as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05. State of Haryana, vide notification dated 27.10.2009, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') acquired 16 acres, 1 kanal and 13 marlas of land for Disposal Works & Sewage Treatment Plant on Kharati Khera road in Bhodia Khera Rural, Tehsil and District Fatehabad. Finally, 16 kanals of land owned by petitioner No. 1 was acquired. Besides this, even 8 kanals of land, which was transferred by petitioner No. 1 in favour of his mother, was also acquired. The award was announced by the Collector on 10.3.2011. The compensation was paid.
(2.) It was submitted that in terms of the policy, with the acquisition of land owned by petitioner No. 1, he became entitled to get job for one of his dependents. The policy provided that 75% of the land owned by the person should have been acquired and the same should be of minimum two acres. It also provides that the revenue record to be seen for the purpose is 4 years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In the case in hand, petitioner No. 1 owned merely 18 kanals and 16 marlas of land, out of which 16 kanals was acquired, hence, the same was more than two acres. The acquisition was also for more than 75% of the total holding of petitioner No. 1, hence, he was eligible to get job for one of the dependents. The submission is that rejection of the case of the petitioners on the ground that 4 years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the total land owned by petitioner No. 1 was 26 kanals and 16 marlas and the acquisition of land being only 16 kanals, the same being not 75% of the holding, petitioner No. 1 is not eligible to seek appointment for dependent family member, is totally wrong as out of the total holding of 26 kanals and 16 marlas of land, as per jamabandi for the year 2004-05, petitioner No. 1 had transferred 8 kanals of land to his mother by way of gilt on 24.4.2006. Even that portion of the land was also acquired. Meaning thereby, if the total holding of petitioner No. 1 is taken as 26 kanals and 16 marlas, total acquired land was 24 kanals which was more than 75%. The provision for seeing ownership of a person in terms of the revenue record 4 years prior to the date of acquisition is to check misuse or fraudulent transfers made just prior to the acquisition to claim employment. The case in hand is not such. The transfer was not in favour of a third party. The transferee therein had not become entitled to employment in her own right. It was a family transfer. The total holding of petitioner No. 1 was 26 kanals and 16 marlas, out of which 24 kanals was acquired. The policy being beneficial deserves to be given purposive interpretation.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that as per the policy, owner of the land, whose land is acquired, has to satisfy that 75% of the land owned by him 4 years prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, has been acquired. In the case in hand, the total holding of petitioner No. 1 four years prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act being 26 kanals and 16 marlas, out of which only 16 kanals having been acquired, the same being not 75%, the benefit of employment in terms of the policy cannot be granted. The policy does not make a distinction regarding transfer of land in favour of family member or otherwise, as transfer is transfer.;