The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the acquisition of land originally meant for a mandi but later used for a school, affirming that the change in land use still serves a public purpose. The court also imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner for filing the plea after a significant delay.
In the case of Ashok Kumar Bansal vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No. 11457 of 2024), a division bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Lalit Batra ruled on May 30, 2024, upholding the land acquisition process that began in 1976.
Background:
The case dates back to 1976 when the Haryana government initiated land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The process was completed with an award in 1978. The land, originally acquired for developing a mandi (market yard), was later used for a school playground and subsequently for constructing a school building.
Legal Journey:
The petitioner’s family had previously challenged the acquisition in 1990 (CWP No. 2120 of 1990), which was dismissed in 1991. Another attempt was made in 2012 (CWP No. 497 of 2012), which was also rejected due to delay and latches. The current petition was filed following the construction of a school building on the land that was earlier used as a playground.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Decision:
1. Change in Land Use: The court held that using the acquired land for a school instead of a mandi still serves a public purpose. Justice Thakur observed, “since even a building subserves the educational pursuits of the school going children, thereupon, concomitantly public good, and, public purpose but becomes subserved”.
2. Delay and Latches: The court noted the significant delay in filing the petition, emphasizing that previous legal challenges had been dismissed years ago.
3. Public Purpose: The bench affirmed that both a playground and a school building satisfy the test of public purpose. The court stated, “Nonetheless, this Court did not even accept the said change in user of the subject lands”, referring to the earlier judgments.
4. Validity of Acquisition: The court maintained and affirmed the original notifications and award for land acquisition.
The court dismissed the petition with costs, stating, “This Court does not find that the raising of a school building on the subject land, is a valid ground for this Court directing the respondents concerned, to consider the release of the subject lands from acquisition”.
Also Read
Mr. Rajesh Bansal represented the petitioner, while Additional Advocate General Mr. Ankur Mittal and Deputy Advocate General Mr. Saurabh Mago appeared for the State of Haryana.
