Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 19
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the land acquired for the development of Sector 48 in Gurgaon will not be “released, allotted or transferred in favour of private builder-cum-developer”.

The ruling is significant as landowners before the High Court were claiming that the Haryana Urban Development Authority had “not even a single piece of land” in Sector 48 and the entire sector had been developed by private colonisers such as Parsvnath, Uppal South End and Aldico.

Taking up the matter, the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Surinder Gupta have also made it clear that the acquired land shall be used “for bona fide public purposes within a reasonable time”.

The directions came on a bunch of six petitions filed by Prem Chand and other petitioners against Haryana and other respondents. Challenging the process, the petitioners had contended that a survey was conducted before acquiring the land and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was not published as required under law.

Terming the acquisition of their land totally “irrational and arbitrary”, the petitioners had added that even objections filed by them under Section 5-A of the Act were not duly considered.

Refuting the allegations, the respondents on the other hand averred the acquired land in Sector 48, Gurgaon, was proposed to be utilised by HUDA for religious buildings, police post, residential plots and other public utility services.

After hearing the rival sides, the Bench observed: “The main argument of the petitioners is that the entire Sector 48, Gurgaon, has been developed by private developers. There are small pockets in this sector left with HUDA, which cannot be put to any use for regulated planned development. As such, land of the petitioners deserves to be released.

“The total land notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act was about 500 acres out of which 150 acres were released even before issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act….

“The averments in affidavits of respondents and the documents on file clearly make out that the acquired land is required by the respondents for bona fide public purposes….We find no merit in the claim made by any of the petitioners, consequently the writ petitions are dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the acquired land shall be used for bona fide public purposes….”