High Court - Final Assault Brief - Detailed (ex High Court Timeline)

Statistically this matter is one of 1,300 odd longest pending writs between 30 & 60 years in
H’ble P & H High Court. Ours being 32 years//58 old

(Date wise) - Relating to CWP15171 of 2010 (Faridabad) & CWP18679 of 2010 (Gurgaon)
S.No Date Events Remarks An Inacton/
x. Stalling
1 1966 Haryana was carved out on 1 Nov 1966. - Punjab Scheduled Roads
& Controlled Areas unregulated Development Act 1963 of
03/07/1964 was in place at that time.
2 Gurgn Distruct Gazzetter1910-> The MoD, GoI, established thermal 1
&
power house at Grgn in 1946, for domestic & commercial electricity 1a
to general public 1955, untill Bhakra supply started.
3 1966 1966 army moved out to Bharatpur & this PARK became full See row #23 2
Pdf 103293 below for
RP> 239 fledged AF Station. During those years within 900 mts was more details
completely agricultural & forest land.
4 1967 Hry State Industry Development Corporation (HSIDC)-incorporated 3
Pdf 32730 3c
RP>526
5 21/01/1969 MoD through Under Sec. to GoI wrote to Chief Sect. Hry on State Govt.
Pdf 103293 never took
RP>188,194 3/02/1969 enclosing Notification SRO No.315 dtd. an action 4
15 Dec.1962 vide covering letter dtd. 20/01/1969 to take action on 4a
unauthorized constructions within 900 mts. restricted zone.
Action had to be initiated by DC of State Govt. with respect to
sections 9 to 12, 23, 24 of Works of Defense Act 1903.
6* IN CWP18679 0f 2010: on 10/02/2012 - Respondent No.7 i.e. HryUrban Dvl. Auth.
(HUDA) - filed reply in H’ble H.C. stating “ they have no record whether any 5
IMP
Pdf permission for the same was granted by MoD or not ”.
22645
RP > However, following documents were filed in H. Court in support. Excerpts :-
411
10/02/2012 HUDA affidavit > Land for sector 14 & sector 18 was acquired under 5
Pdf 22645 a
RP >410
Notifications U/S 4& 6 of Land acquisition Act vide Memo No. LAC-
onwards 72/NTLA/2415 dtd. 13.12. 1972 & Memo No. LAC-73/NTLA/426 dtd.
31.01.1973 respectively.
18/11/1970 H’ble Mr. Bansi Lal writes to H’ble Def. Min. –Mr. Jagjivan Ram : State Gov. 5
See Row Since Hry. Govt. has undertaken planned development of Gurgaon Town unmindful of b
21B - & 33 MoD
too & appxly. 415 acres of Land including 157 acres in village Dundahera notifications
Mr. Kishan presently occupied by 41 Independent Artillery (that now being moved carried on
Chand out to Alwar) should instead be de-requisitioned in favor of Hry. Govt. as under
07/12/1970 H’ble Mr. Bansi Lal writes to H’ble Def. Min. Mr. Jagjivan Ram:
Pdf 22645
RP > 414
D.O. No: CMH-70/3739 dtd 7/12/1970 – referring to :- Pl.refer
1. Notification SRO No. 315 dtd.15 Dec. 1962 & MoD Letter Srl. No. 2A
above 5
dtd. 3/02/1969 c
2. The Def. Min. having told the Lok Sabha in response to starred
question No. 236 that ‘the Govt. had decided to de-requisition
415 acres’ of land comprising 258 acres & 157 acres,which is no
longer required for Defence purpose.
 3. Requesting de-requisitioning of remaining 157 acres at earliest too.
24/02/1971 Hry. Govt. - Town & Country Planning initiated proceedings to For Sec.14 –
Pdf 22645 Residential 5
RP > 417 acquire land in vicinity of the Air Field vide various Notifications Sec.18 d
for Sec 14 & 18 etc. in the years 1972, 1973, 1981 & 1982 Industrial
27/08/1971 MoD through Under Sec. GoI – requested that acquisition of land in
question be dispensed with.
12/04/1972 In response to above a detailed reply No. DU(3)-72/2822 from Dp. National
Pdf 22645 Highway 8;
RP > 418 Sec. Hry. goes on to say: – New 5
Onwards Since 64 Air Field Complex project too has been abandoned by Fly Over is
e
All currently
corresponden MoD and considerable areas requisitioned during World War II had coming within
ce been de-requisitioned. 40 mts of
Depot.
MoD offices, Officers’ Mess structures, portion of National High National
Way No.8 known as Delhi-Gurgaon Road, are within 1000 Security
yards. & Aspect
So is the land in question being developed by State Govt. for comprom
Industrial purposes & infact more land is being acquired under the ised or
development plan already prepared for this area. Not ????
31/10/1972 Follow up– Director Urban State , Hry- writes to Under Sec. GoI/
5
MoD vide DU(3) -72/8627 :– As development plan has already been f
published for Industrial purpose and since till date no reply is
received from MoD, the reply be expedited and in case no reply is
received within 15 days it will be presumed that the MoD have
no objection for the acquisition of land for Industrial &
Residential purposes in Gurgaon area by the Govt. of Hry.
12/04/1972 Estate Officer also referring to above DU(3) -72/8627 elaborates that :-
1. Hry Govt acquired 400 Acres during the year 1971 and out of 5
this 297 Acres was allotted to M/s Maruti Ltd. Imp. g
2. Hry Govt. wants to further acquire about 400 acres of more
land for Industrial & residential purpose immediately and for
this MoD clearance in reply to letter No. DU(3) -72/2822 of
12/4/72 of TCP be sent as early as possible .
7 1972 HSIDC in 1972-73 carved ‘Maruti Industrial Estate’ Sector18 5
D/pdf32730 a
RP>526/528 in full propriety rights on 50 acres of land transferred to HSIDC by
Deptt. Urban Estate Hry. vide Deed of Conveyance dtd 4/4/1975
8 8/11/1972 HSIDC– Advertises ‘Golden opportunity’ offering Industrial plots. Imp. 6
9 11.12.1972 Entrepreneur accordingly applies for Industrial plot in Sector 18.
10 13/12/1972 Notifications issued U/S 4 & 6 of Land Acquisition Act vide LAC - 5
a
72/NTLA/2415 dtd. 13.12.1972 for residential Sector 14.
11 31.01.1973 Entrepreneur was allotted industrial plot vide allotment letter no.
HSIDC/ TAP/GG/ALT/70/24471 dated 31.01.1973.
12 16/06/1981 UoI divested - vide Govt. Notification in favor of Maruti Suzuki –– How UoI
could do it
under special statue of Parliament (portion of unit falls within 900
&300 mts.). Maruti impleads vide CM 16554 (dtd 14/12/2015).
13 02/01/1984 HUDA– Once again calling applications for Industrial plots in Imp. 6a

Sector 18, around Maruti Udyog Complex.

14 Cwp 6669 In CWPs 6669 of 1988 (15/7/1988) in Gurgaon –>On 25.9.1987 i.e 15 yrs
of 1988 Central Govt. issued a notification under Sec 3 of Works of Defense after our
15/7/1988 having been 6b
D pdf32730k Act – this notification was not published in the locality as envisaged in &
RP630,631 in the section itself. Later, on 15.7.1988 notification under section 9 production 6c
& V never
E pdf of the Act was issued & individual notices sent calling upon persons
received
Page 624 to to file claims personally or through authorized representatives upto any such
640
& also in 10.8.1988. notice
Separate Hence CWPs 6669 of 1988 filed: praying directions - quashing
H.C.orders the impugned Notification - Acquisition proceedings of Central
file bunch
Govt. under Sec. 9 dtd . 15.7.1988 of Works of Defence Act
1903;being in partiality,to Qua parties while leaving out others
like Maruti, Industrial sector 18 ; Govt. residential sectors 4 &14,
Electricity Board sub-station etc. etc….
15 18/3/1991 H’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan granted STAY to demolitions in IMP
. E pdf public un
Page 624 to favor of petitioners till similar action is taken against the ones aware of it
640
favorably left out. Untill 2010

16 24.10.2003 MoD -George Fernandes to Mr. Chautala –Necessary safety and See row 36, 6
F pdf 44 below d
103,293 kb preventive measures have been taken by the concerned Air for more
Rp>138 Force unit to ensure it does not cause threat to civil population
17 22/03/2005 Facts finding Board constituted by MoD> submitted report on See row # 39 7
Fpdf103,293 below for to
RP>138 to 22 March 2005 -: suggestions Including;Findings ;Land rates; more details 7e
292 ‘need for Renotification by C. Govt. of 900 mts’ etc. etc…. >>IMP
18 14/02/2007 MoD Notification SRO 12 dated 03.03.2007 published14/2/2007 Imp
19 16/12/2008 In CWP 15416 of 2008- H’ble Mr.Chief Justice T.S.Thakur &
H.C.orders
H’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Ordered :
Respondents shall continue taking appropriate action strictly in
accordance with law against those may be seen to be violating
provisions of Works of Defense Act 1903 and the Punjab Scheduled
Roads & Controlled Areas unregulated Development Act 1963.
1/07/2009 On similar grounds : Another Suit filed vide CWPs 8707, 8701,
20 See
IMP F/pdf 11422, 11632, 11633, 12017, 11820 of 1999 & 8570 of 2001, judgment
103,293 kb *Travel Star Hotel , Goya Resorts & other petitioners in Baddowal–
*RP>304 Imp
& arising out of Notification dtd. 31/01/1983 in vicinity of
In view if
Separate Ammunition Depot Ludhiana–that was earlier heard & dismissed it’s repeat
H.C.orders by Division Bench of H’ble High Court on 19/03/2001 on grounds :- subsequent
file bunch
1) Declaration made under Sec 3(1) of Act is final, operative & reference
ahead as
effective, even claim for compensation could be settled later. well
2) Omission of notice under Sec 9 of the Act – did not affect
validity of declaration
3) Sec. 6(4) of Act is only applicable to constructions existing at the
time of declaration under sec 3 of the Act.
4) Shifting of Depot does not lie in ambit of H.C.
5) Other illegal constructions did not vitiate proceedings as also held
by H’ble S.C. -(AIR 1977) , and in any case court could decline to
interfere under Article 226
5) Removal was ordered in Bharatpur Depot & Dehu Pune.
On subsequent APPEAL OF ABOVE PETITIONERS H’ble S.C. >
without expressing any opinion on merits, set aside above H.C order
on 7/2/2003. & remanded the matter for a fresh decision.
Thereupon - H’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh K. Goyal & H’ble Mr.
Justice J. Chauhan - delivered decision on 01 July 09 :-
1. Notification under Sec.3 read with sec. 7(b) comes into
force forthwith and is conclusive proof of necessity to V. IMP
keep land free from buildings. decision
Repeatedly
2. Enforcement of such restrictions under Sec 7 is not being relied
dependant on making of any award or making of upon here
compensation, was permissible even before making of the after.
award (refer S.C. judgment 1996)
3. Subsequent inaction, absence of taking steps for making of
award does not have the effect of annulling the restriction
which comes into force as soon as the notification is
published .
4. There is no indication in Section 9 of the Act that if before
the period stipulated therein, public notice is not given,
notification under section 3 read with section 7 will lapse.
There is no warrant for inferring such a consequence. .
5. Objective of a statue has to be looked into. There is no
general rule to determine when a provision is mandatory
(where omission to follow Act renders the proceedings
illegal & void i.e. if the statue provides punishment or penal
consequence for the act so done would be invalid) or
directory (where Act’s observance is not necessary).
6. Having regard to the object of imposing restrictions, the
procedural provisions to deal with determination of
compensation after restrictions have already been operative
could not affect the said restrictions, said provisions be read
as directory & compliance requirement of issuing notice or
giving compensation could be done even now.
Consequently this H’ble Court held :
1. That the impugned notification was not liable to be
quashed and constructions raised in violation of Section 7,
after the notification, are thus illegal, same are liable to be
demolished without any compensation.
2. Therefore, the earlier notifications in the years 1962, 1968,
1082, 1987, 1999, SRO 93(22.5.2001) were also effective &
operative during the relevant time. There is nothing in
Section 9 to infer that a notification issued under Section 3
read with Section 7 will lapse if public notice is not given
within the stipulated period under Section 9. The demolition
of existing structures is not possible without award, but if
structures have been made after the issuance of notifications, Thus
Unauthoriz
it is possible to demolish them before making the award.
ed & are
 However the affected party is entitled to a direction for said Illegal as
steps being taken and for compensation for delay of Way
3. In the light of above discussions, it is opined that structures back
constructed after 30 Nov. 62 are unauthorized and thus can from
be demolished even before making of an award. 1962
27/03/2010 CM , apprehending law & order problem, to START WITH decided Time V most
21 Dpdf32730 came to know 8
RP>74 to first clear 50 mts around the depot. & about &
1st demolition undertaken in Mullahera (of 50 structures). problem &
the on going
8a/
Imp ISSUE here also arises Can 2 Acts be made applicable court 8b
proceedings /8c
simultaneously on same piece of land ?????? >>>>> also
Separate since In CWP 17048 of 2007 (Rajat Kachhal)– (now) Hon. Justice Arun Palli
H.C.orders – As Sr. Adv in 2007 –> argued & had 1963 Act implementation quashed IMP
file bunch ????? Issue
since 1963 Act & 1994 Acts of MC gurg. were seen to be overlapping.
22 14.07.2010 M/s City Crown Hotel & Resorts P. ltd –MC Gurgm Issued letter 11
E/pdf
RP>539, 550 granting permission for construction . (Rajeev Ngr address ?)
9.8.2010 Having sought information through RTI –Regarding SRO 93 dtd That’s
23 when for 1st
H.C.0rders 22.5.2001 Gazette published on 9.6.2001 & of SRO 12 Notification time active
file Gazette published 14 Feb 2007 Sr. Adv. Atul Lakhanpal filed court action
CWP15171 of 2010 on behalf of Mr. Suresh Goyal- Seeking action started &
none others
against unauthorized constructions coming up in F’bad knew of it.
15-12.2010 In CWP13217 of 2009 >Hry. State issued Notification dtd. 8.7.2008 This land
24 HPdf acquisition
also & 21.8.2009 for acquiring Land for development of Sri Mata Shetla Notice falls
H.C Orders Devi Shrine Complex. within 900
file (7) Petitioners challenged notification > before passing of Award. mts of
& restricted
H’ble Mr. Justice asbir Singh & H’ble Mr. Justice Augustine G. area.
Separate Masih - observed & ordered Which is
H.C.orders Cause of concern for this court is the unauthorized constructions being done
file bunch even after
that have come into existence within 900 mts restricted zone and
the
land under acquisition admittedly falls within 900 mts of restricted
last/Latest
area. MoD
Respondents admitted in their written statement that lands have been notification
exempted from acquisition only for the reason that these were of 3 March
residential houses,commercial establishments, shops in existence. 2007 ???
There is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioners or land
owners whose lands have been exempted because of constructions
made there on, had after the issuance of declaration under Sec.3 of
Defense Act 1903, obtained required permission/sanction/exemption
from the competent authority or these constructions were as per the
Punjab Scheduled Roads Act 1963.
Court refers to 1/7/2009 H.C.Bench Judgment & further observes: Judgment
The Court cannot turn a blind eye to the blatant inaction on the Row #20
part of Authorities who have permitted a seepage to develop into a above
trickle, which is now threatening to take the shape of a full stream
breaching & eroding safety……….Defense Act strikes a balance
between interest of citizens & nation……….Executive Authorities
who are mandated to implement, oversee & maintain the statutory
 provisions, have totally shut their eyes & have allowed illegal
constructions to mushroom within the restricted area. What is most
surprising & astonishing is that those very illegal constructions
which have been made by land owners within the restricted area of
their land have been granted legitimacy by exempting their land
from acquisition.
25 13.01.2011 Acting H’ble Mr. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi & H’ble Mr.
Justice Augustine G. Masih – observed : -
H.C Orders The petitioner in larger public interest has taken initiative to draw
file attention of the court to the illegal encroachment in & around Air
Force Stn. Faridabad. The Air Force Authorities which should
have taken such initiative either by approaching a Court of law or
any other step to have the mischief rectified not only has failed to IMP
take any action on the matter over the years but has not even
responded to the notice issued by the Court …..
26 25.01.2011 Affidavit Huda Administrator – Fearing Law & order situation 8
Dpdf32730 8b
RP>67 Govt. & Dist. Adm. under the knowledge & directions of H’ble Never 8c
Chief Minster - decided to undertake demolition drive in phased materialized
though
manner first with in 50 mts. first from the crest of the boundary
wall…..…even that never materialized.
S.C.-in SLP(civil) no.11023 of 1996 for monitoring unauthorized
RP>134/35 constructions & controlled areas of unregulated development Act
Also in
H.C. orders 1963 and of Hry. Devp. & Regulation of Urban Act 1975 falling in i.e. 35 years
file Gurgn. – a monitoring cell was constituted under Chairmanship of (too) late (r)
Admistrator HUDA on 16-06- 1997.
27 09.02.2011 CM 4511-CII/2011 in COCP 972/ 2010;
Pdf 32730 That after passing the order on 27.1.2011 the D.C. Gurgn. made an
RP>630/ announcement directing the occupants of these buildings to
631 vacate the same within three days so that necessary demolition
may be carried out. When this announcement was made the entire 12
area suspended their work and came on the street, They protested, 12
a
since buildings are in existence since last 7 to 30 yrs .
28 14.02.2011 DTP (E) – Gurgn.- Submits summary list of constructions within Till date
Pdf 32730 being shown
RP>154 to 900 mts.. Also stating “while taking cognizance of the restrictions as Market 13
162 imposed under Works of Defence Act 1903, the area under 900 mts. Garden in 13
restricted belt (wherever not planned otherwise) has been kept as: existing/ a
future Govt.
market garden under broad land use zone of ‘agriculture’. Devlp. Plans
29 21.02.2011 H’ble Mr.Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi &…..:Court took notice of Till date
though no
1st

D pdf “ Counsel of the State of Hry submits that the Govt. shall consider such
time
In 2011
32730k the possibility of preparing a Scheme to either rehabilitate proposal is 14 i.e.
Rp>487 persons who have raised unauthorized houses or a Scheme that even in the 10 year
In COCP offing back was
972/2010 would require these persons to conform to all the rules, regulations Resettle
Also in laid down for construction of bldgs within the urban area of Gurg.” ment
H.C. orders Scheme
For this lot of people individually filed affidavits accepting/ opting Under
file
for Govt. proposed scheme, though stating that “ They constructed Lens
structures under the bonafide belief that construction is deemed to
 have been regularized as Huda developed residential/commercial
sectors 17 & 18 (which are within the restricted Area)
30* 04.03.2011 HUDA Administrator’s Affidavit - Constructions (in 900 mts) :-
IMP Huda sector 14 having only 477 constructed houses; 2 schools,
Police post, 36 SCOs; 15 Kisoks; Payal Cinema Hall.
Sector 18 – Maruti Industrial Area
Sector 22: School play ground; HUDA water works; Devilal Park
Sector 23; 23A- Part of Hospital site, Cremation ground, Park.
Huda Sectors 14, 18, 12, 17, 22, 23, 23A partially in 900 Mts.
being in conformity HUDA Act 1977, with final Development Being quoted
Fpdf103293 as per Sr No.1
RP>59 Plan prepared under provisions of Act 1963. above
Affidavit –Spl Sec. Urban Local Bodies - Development undertaken
Affidavit by HUDA & HSIDC in conformity with the proposals of Brazen
H.C. file STAND
22/11/2013
development plan published under Act 1963 before year 2007 are STILL
15
not affected by provisions of Works of Defense Act (1903)
31 28.04.2011 In COCP 723 of 2010 hearing on 20/4/2011 -
D/pdf32730 9
RP> 511 Personal litigation between Mrs. Mukesh Malik & co-owners of
Khasra 2051 to 2057 converted to PIL- by misrepresentation.
Hon’ble High Courts’ observation: >HUDA, HSIIDC,
MCG allowed & developed residential, commercial, Industrial
structures, issuing licenses, no objection certificates, permission
for change of land use, cinema halls, petrol pumps, malls, Govt. 9a
buildings & offices BUT IS ‘EVASIVE’ as to how , why & when
these were allowed to be there.
32 13.10.2011 City Crown Hotel P Ltd- McG grants permission vide letter No. 11
pdfDD1 11
RP.544 AW(B)/MCG/2010/361`on 14/7/2010 a
33 07.12.2011 In SLP 32060/2011 H’ble Supreme Court grants ‘STATUS QUO’ there is no 10
E pdf speaking order
RP>2, &539 Do we need to have it vacated too at this stage ?????????? in our case
34 13.10.2012 DTP affidavit – On 19-12-2011 in Standing Committee meeting
F pdf under Chairpersonship of Chief Sect. Hry. decided that in restricted
103,293 kb 900 mts. zone Gurgn. :-
RP>64,65
& 1. No public health/water connection, power connection, water
Most 16
Separate supply & sewerage connection be given.
H.C.orders
file bunch
2. No registration for transfer of land by way of sale, lease of Imp ??
any land without obtaining mandatory ‘NOC’ from TCP.
35 22.11.2012 In CWP 15171/2010 of Faridabad - Mr. Batlvi – Counsel UoI For the first
time Gurgn
H.C. orders informs the court that similar unauthorized constructions are being issues
file carried out in restricted zone in Gurgn. too. raised in the
Hon’ble C.J. A.K.Sikari– Ordered to inform Chief Judicial H.C
Magistrate Grgn. immediately on telephone & through fax to report
on the issue before next date of hearing.
To address issue of illegal constructions Hon’ble C.J. asked for 2
lists –constructions that existed before & after the Notifications.
36 14.10.2013 Standing Comm. Meeting Chief Sec. Hry. & MoD officers -
F pdf
103,293 kb Payment of compensation - no such exercise has been done yet .
RP.132/134 Mcg shall examine waiver of ‘Property Tax’ in respect of properties
 falling within 900 mts restricted belt.
24.10.2003 George Fernandes to CM- Mr. Chautala – Ammunition Depot has
been in existence since 1946. Necessary safety and preventive
RP>138 measures have been taken by the concerned Air Force unit to 6
d
ensure that it does not cause any threat to civil population.
36 A 22.10.2013 H’ble Mr.Chief Justice S.K.Kaul &… Observed : Bench
repriman
We had passed a detailed order qua the role of Central Govt. & the ds Hry.
State Govt in the matter in the issue. It is exasperating to note that State.
Unrespo
there are no proper instructions to the counsels at all. As usual, the nsivene
State of Haryana has failed to file any status report . This is in attitude
That
complete breach of our directions. We are, thus, constrained to to persists
impose costs of 10,000 on State of Haryana….further non see 48 &
57
compliance …..to summon Chief Secretary with records personally. below
37 31.10.2013 In CWP 13543of 1990 - H’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant dismissed Krishan i.e.
Chand Jain
Separate - citing ‘n’ no. of judgments of this very H’ble High Court - petition See row 33 In 1976
of Mr. Krishan Chand Jain (Miya colony, Gurgn.) seeking down ahead. Acquisti
H.C.orders
Still awaiting on was
file bunch quashing of notifications dtd. 9-5-1988 & 4-5-1989 of the land decision @ 6e
allowed
Acquisition Act 1894 on the grounds that Hry. Govt. vide S.C. that has
to
requested
notifications dtd 28-12-1976 intended to acquire 413.13 acre of land Lapse
Hry H.C to
acquisition in Gurgn. for residential & commercial purposes (but no award was expedite
structure
was decision of
passed and the acquisition was allowed to lapse> etc. etc.) & since s existed
allowed to our this
even
his land & existing structures though built prior to 1962 too is in present
lapse prior to
linked case
for similar use (admittedly part of it falling 900 mts.) 1962
22.11.2013 H’ble Mr. Chief Justice S.K.Kaul Court in CWP15171 0f 2010- It Imp
38 V were
was pointed out that Notification issued in the year 2007 bearing No. allotted plot
SRO12 dated 14.02.2007 imposing restrictios in Gurgaon & F’bad is a in 1972/ 73
fresh notification which is neither a continuation nor supersession of imposing
earler notifications issued in that regard. Thus the development restrictios
undertaken by the Government agency such as HUDA and HSIDC in 14.02.2007
conformity with the proposal of the development plan published under Afffidavit :
the Act of 1963 before year 2007 are not affected by provisions of * Earlier
notification
Works of Defense Act (1903)…… could not be
The afore said affidavit thus, raises a number of issues, inter alia, the enforced in
illegality of the manner of placing restrictions in the restricted area. absence of
We thus, cannot appreciate the stand of the Central Govt, through Defence details of 15
Ministry & the Air Force by just relying on the aspect of national land
effective 15
security to state that nothing is possible. This is no answer, It is their by a
baby and they have to sort out the issue. If the decision taken is to retain notification &
the restriction as it is, then the provisions of WD Act have to be complied also absence
of public
with, we thus, call upon the MoD & Air Force to place another status notice
report before us dealing with all the issues arising from the report of Dept. required be
of Urban Local Bodies, Hry. –> that Compensation has not been paid . given as per
the ACT
39* In H’ble Mr. Chief Justice S.K.Kaul Court in CWP18679 0f 2010: on
IMP 31/01/2014 - UoI filed detailed Affidavit of Group Captain A.K.Pan, A.F.Stn.
Gurgaon dtd.28 Jan.2014 in support of their pleadings in brevity as under :-
28.01.2014 Affidavit of Group Captain A.K.Pan filed on 28/1/2014
Fpdf103,293 In 2004-05 MoD set up a ‘Fact finding’ Board of Officers
 kb committee vide letter dtd. 29 July 2003 : - to identify existing
RP>138 to
292 structures within the restricted zone & other issues related with it
along with recommendations etc.; The board submitted report on
22 March 2005 with its’ Findings :-
1. 54ASP, AF was originally formed in 1948 & subsequently
in 1966 army moved out to Bharatpur & this PARK became full
fledged AF Station. During those years within 900 mts was
completely agricultural & forest land.
2. list of 7 issued Gazette Notifications – 30 Nov. 1962 ; 30
Dec. 1968; 25 Aug. 1982; 25 Spt. 1987; 6 July 1999; SRO 93 Imp ?
dtd 22May2001 i.e. of 9 Jun 2001; & 3 March 2007.
Apparently
3. Board assembled at 54 ASP(Air Force Office) to assess : - compensati 5a
quantum of compensation based on existing land rates of year 2005 on exercise 1 2 nd

RP>128 Last meeting was held on 14 Oct. 2013 under the Chairmanship of has been on time in
since 2005 2005
Chief Sec Hry at Civil Secretariat, & with Air HQ on 28 Oct - State compen
Govt officials were part of meetings held in office of D.C. Gurgm. Neither is sation
It is submitted that the compensation has neither been duly Issue
Till date visited
evaluated nor projected by local administration to UoI.>>>>>>>
4. It reported 962 structures in restricted zone from records 7f
of office of DTP (E) including Maruti, Pasco, Sectors - 5,14,17 & 18 (i)
5. It Suggested renotification of 900 mts. by C. Govt.
6. Judgment of H’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh K. Goyal &
H’ble Mr. Justice J. Chauhan - delivered on 01 July 2009 was
re-iterated (as mentioned @ srl. no. 14 above).
(ex. MoD Report :- Central Govt. on 22/5/2001 considered it necessary & MoD’S Own
40 Fact
finding
DRDO
expedient to impose restrictions upon enjoyment of land in 900 mts.- RECOMME
report dtd. that was to take effect on date of publication of SRO 93 (in exercise NDATION
is of 1993
22/03/2005 of powers conferred by section 3 & 7 of W.D. Act 1903 in Gazette. that could
submitted FREE 5a
in H.C. on Therein also implementing Aircraft Act 1934- vide notification scarce land
31.1.2014 SO 988 dtd. 5TH Jan 1988 . countrywide
Pdf 103293 under
RP>241 Also implementing –> Quantity Distance Regulations for litigations &
Urbanization
‘Military Explosives 1993’ – vide STEC Pamphlet No.1. (issued pressure. In
>>>>> by Defence R&D Organisation); Evolving
technology
> Pamphlet No.1- points - ‘Igloos’ back in 1993 that could Advancements
400/ 300 mts.
reduce safety zone to 400 mts. ‘Irrespective of Quantity’. too w’d be an
obsolete
requirement
41 20.03.2014 H’ble Mr. Chief Justice S.K.Kaul - Set up High Powered
committee under Chairmanship of Cabinet Secretary,Govt. of India.
42 25.09.2014 DC Gurg: Movement of Building Material banned as of 5/09/2014 Imp 16
FPdf103293 a
RP>363 Impound & file an FIR against vehicle, mason & owner of the plot .
43 29.09.2014 Adnl. Chief Sec. Hry.(Inds. & Commerce): In CWP 10579 of 2011 Our
Industries
– Matter pertaining EMP 2011- Chamber of Ind. Udyog Vihar Gurg Association
On the issue of ‘Illegal development & sale of plots’- Observed:
“The issue of violation of “Works of Defense Act 1903– “Protected
 Zone” came up after many years of development of the said
Industrial Estate….. “said 86 affected plots may not be able to carry
on any construction activity or to use additional permissible F.A.R.
in view of H’ble S.C. stay order dated. 17/12/2011……however, It
is not feasible…..the reallocation….etc; However, if they still feel
aggrieved HSSIDC should offer to refund the allotment price with How ???
benevolent
12% interest since the date of allotment till the date of refund qua indeed!!!!
these plots ( i.e. allotment price of Rs.15/= per sq. yd or so)
44 30.09.2015 MoD thereafter files Affidavit: Most Imp
17
reducing safety zone to 300 mts. subject to State Govt. makes it
encroachment free in defined time frame. # 1 to 3 are
own
1. In the current Affidavit filed too on 30/9/2015 – MoD has observations
clearly refused any necessassity/ use of land to them beyond – on reading
300 mts ( for reasons well explained there in the Affidavit) the Affidavit
filed.
2. Minister of Defense – Mr. George Fernandes communicated
to then CM Mr. Chautala. ‘Necessary safety & preventive
measures have been taken by concerned Air Force Unit to Pl. see rows
16 & 36
ensure that it does not cause any threat to civil population’ &
now subsequently safety point is being re-endorsed by High
Powered Committee appointed by HC comprising of experts
Pl. see Srl
from all fields including the defense experts, scientists #27 above
familiar with storage of ammunition- decisively concluding
that safety zone of 300 mts is sufficient
3. Affidavit categorically stating at Page 5 srl no. 12(e) ‘That
MoD does not need to acquire the land for imposing
100/900 mts restrictions, ‘it not being a practical solution’
45 6 10.2015 Addnl. Sol. Gen. of India further states that the aforesaid decision Most Imp 17
a
has been taken only with regard to concerned Air Force Stations
at Gurgaon & Faridabad and the same may not be taken as a
precedent for other Air Force Stations in other parts of the country.
46 16.11.2015 Affidavit – Dr. Mahabir Singh (P. Sect. Hry.ULB) -
Constructions raised within the safety zone may be violations/
unauthorized but cannot be said to be encroachments.
Power to remove any building erected in contravention of
provisions of the Act are that of Central Govt. and compensation is
to be paid by Central Govt. ; State Govt. would provide necessary
assistance to MoD in removing constructions.
47 14.12.2015 CM 16554 of 8.12.2015 in CWP 18679 of 2010– Maruti Limited Maruti came
C/pdf to know only
2314kb impleaded – claiming land bestowed under special statue of after Mcorp
Parliament - deemed to have come in force on the 13th day of gurg notice
October 1980 under the Acquisition & transfer of Undertakings Act served on
31/1/2015
1980 with Gazette Notification dated 16.06.1981.
29.3.2016 Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Adl Adv. General, Haryana was asked to clear M. Imp 1st M. Imp
48 * 4 yrs on & 19 peding
Haryana Govt stand on 1973 Act.He sought time to seek instructions Issue
State Govt
since as it stands under the Act they have to remove constructions/ has yet to @ State
hindrances beyond 300 mts upto 900 mts. respond 36A too
49 11.01.2017 In CWP 23897 of 2016 - H’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant– denied Individual
seeking
the petitioner in the HSIIDC carved out Industrial Estate, seeking permission
permission to renovate/ repair ( being beyond 300 mts) - the for repair of
precariously dilapidated 42 years old factory premises & fallen boundary
wall & bldg
down boundary wall. portions -
Denied “ Right to livelihood” born out of the “right to life” as DENIED
enshrined in article 21 of Constitution of India.
50 23.05.2017 Sr. Adv. Mr. Puneet Bali - City Crown Hotel – asks for permission Like being
one of us
to carry on construction being beyond 300 mts.
10.05.2017 Justice S.S.Saron- The position regarding the area beyond 2nd Time 2nd
51 * around Time
100/300 mts & falling within the controlled area under 1963 Act H. State is 19 State
shall also be submitted. & Notification dtd.28.7.2016 needed to Asked to unrespo
file reply nsive
be suitably amended. See
36A,48
52 24.08.2017 SRO 66 dtd. 24-06-2017 – DCs of all states & U.Ts of Indian Finally after 18
nearly
Union–Ultimately empowered under absolute sections of 1903 Act 29 yrs
53 16.02.2018 H’ble Supreme Court – H’ble Mr. JUSTICE Ranjan Gogoi & H’ble Krishan
IMP Chand Jain
& MrS. R. Bhanumathi - challenged his
#### land
Separate in SLP(C) No.9490 of 2014 - reference CWP 13543 of 1990 of acquisition
H.C.orders 6e
file bunch Mr. Krishan Chand Jain, Apex Court requested the High Court Now fair
compensation
Cwp8881/89 to decide the aforesaid writ CWP 15171/2010 as soon as possible from Apex
13086 & Court. Hence
15934/90, & copy of H.C. order of date be placed in Apex Court records. reference.
54 28.03.2018 S.C.:Justice Adarsh Kumar Goyal & Justice Navin Sinha & justice Do V need
to have S.C.
Rohinton F. Nariman. : in Criminal Appeal Nos:1375,1376 of 2013- stay vacated
(Petitioner advocate: Mr. Ram Jethmalani): - In Stays pending for first. ( No
>>>>>>>> longer period, the order of stay will stand vacated on expiry of six speaking
order in our
months, from today; unless extension granted by a speaking order. case) ????
55 13.04.2018 Finally through www.gurugram.gov.in D.C.Gurugram posts Already 2 Now
notices: years , 3rd time
since this Around
1. Under Sec.8–Report of properties falling within 300 mts. too started 15 yrs
(458page pdf) & state yet
later to
one
2. Under Sec. 9 – Asking interested persons with in 300 mts to clear its’ 2nd
compen
- to file claims of compensation by 15 May 2018. stand >> sation
3. Above notices also disseminated in English & Hindi news on1963Act, Issue
(4yrs since revisite
papers on 14.4.2018 with MoD’s earlier 8 notifications from court been d
1987 to the latest one dtd. 24.08.2017 asking)
56 18-04-2018 H’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant In view of Apex Court request to Refer
Srl. 33
the High Court of 16.02.2018 to decide the writ CWP 15171/2010 - above
gave D.C. & M.C. F’bad in the interest of justice – ‘the last
opportunity’ to coordinate within two weeks such a recourse, in a
way, would amount to redressal of the grievance of writ petitioners
This Present
in CWP 15171/2010. pending case
57 24-05-2018 H’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant - That no further extension shall
 be granted & that both authorities were to determine individual’s
claims/objections & assess the compensation in accordance with law
58 25-07-2018 H’ble Mr. Chief Justice Krishna Murari & H’ble Mr. Justice M.Imp Whole
COURT
Arun Pall - Sol.Gen. Mr. Jain clarified in court that unless State exercise
Govt clears out 300 mts area, the UoI/MoD affidavit condition – back
‘restricted zone stays as 900 mts as per Act’. to
Sr.Adv. Mr. Akshay Bhan requested for ‘Temporary electricity square
one
connection for people beyond 300 mts. in 900 mts zone’ – was in
response asked to move his application.
59 14-08-2018 Sr Adv. Chetan Mittal & Addl A.G (Hry) together submitted that 4th
the proceedings under sections 8 & 9 are ‘void’* (since action/ Time
around
formalities not completed by the State within the scheduled time whole
frame under the Act) . proceedi
ngs
Thereupon Council for UoI prays adjournment to seek further under
instructions in the matter on issues* which were subject matter of Cloud
again
arguments advanced today i.e. * proceedings are ‘void’
60 12-09-2018 NowAlmost i.e.
Let all the matters be listed, ( for 2 consecutive days) for
2 yrs over 2 yrs
final hearing on 22.10. 2018 back
61 22-10-2018 (no sign of final hearing) – instead, Collector Gurgn. (through
Solicitor Gen. Mr. Satpal Jain) files affidavit dtd.21-10-2018 –
Playing another ploy in stalling the whole process of final hearing
– that state is finally calling tenders from firms for evaluation
assessment of compensation within 300 mts.
((CJ- suggests Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshay Bhan & Adnl.S.G. Mr. Satpal
Jain to work out arrangement within themselves for release of
electric connection beyond the 300 mts.))
62 13-12-2018 UoI – communicates - decision to permit temporary electricity
connection for people beyond 300 mts – subject to the condition that
the same shall not create any vested rights in the consumers.
Sr. Adv. Mr Puneet Bali – requests the bench for similar relief for
‘Bonafide allotees’ beyond 300 mts’ & was assured the Bench will
take up the issue after this.
63 02-04-2019 Addl Sol. Gen Mr. S.P. Jain – informs the Court that process of Latest time Would
stalling/ MoD
assessment is in progress. UoI is ready to bear the compensation spanner in ever
but for incidental expenses it has asked State Govt. to bear these the wheel/ allow
& assured that the issue will be resolved amicably very soon. subverting drone
strategy suvey
Hry State again changes tack stating ‘assessment process is being
handed over to Archeological Department- wanting ‘Drone Survey’ ???
64 17.07.2019 Mr. S.P. Jain – informs the Court that State of Haryana is yet to 5th
respond to letter written by UoI on bearing incidental expenses time
nd
65 16-10-2019 DC Gurgn. files affidavit. Hry. Govt. - Bearing incidental expenses> 2 issue 2nd
State Govt. issue
issue still undecided. ??????????? unresponsive State
Various parties apply to be impleaded & requesting DHBVN & over the Govt.
DC Gurgn to release temporary electricity connection pursuant to issue still for unrespo
over a year nsive
H.C order dtd. 18-12-2018
 Other Important RELATED/ INTER-RELATED Judgments to the case:

CWP15171 of 2010 (Faridabad) & CWP18679 of 2010 (Gurgaon)

1 CWP 6669 of 1988 H’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan Stay to demolitions until everyone else too
is covered
2 CWP 8707 of 2009 H’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Main detailed effective judgment still being
Goel & H’ble Mr. Justice J. Chauhan considered
3 CWP 13217 of 2009 H’ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh & Acquisition Proceedings under lens
H’ble Mr. Justice A. G. Masih
4 CWP 17048 of 2007 H’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta & Quashing orders passed under 1963 Act
H’ble Mr. Justice R. N. Raina being ‘Overlapping’
5 CWP13543 of 1990
6 CWP8881 of 1989

Assailable Issues

S.No Year Event Remarks

Cwp 6669 In CWPs 6669 of 1988 (15/7/1988) in Gurgaon –>On 25.9.1987 Central
of 1988 Govt. issued a notification under Sec 3 of Works of Defense Act – this
15/7/1988
notification was not published in the locality as envisaged in the section
D pdf32730k itself. Later, on 15.7.1988 notification under section 9 of the Act was
RP630,631
&E pdf issued & individual notices sent calling upon persons to file claims
personally or through authorized representatives upto 10.8.1988.
Page 624 to
640 Hence CWPs 6669 of 1988 filed: praying directions - quashing the
impugned Notification - Acquisition proceedings of Central Govt. under
& also in
Sec. 9 dtd . 15.7.1988 of Works of Defence Act 1903;being in
Separate partiality,to Qua parties while leaving out others like Maruti, Industrial
H.C.orders
file bunch
sector 18 ; Govt. residential sectors 4 &14, Electricity Board sub-station
etc. etc….

1 22/03/2005 Affidavit of Group Captain A.K.Pan filed on 28/1/2014

Fpdf103,293
RP>138 to In 2004-05 MoD set up a ‘Fact finding’ Board of Officers committee
292 vide letter dtd. 29 July 2003 : - to identify existing structures within the
restricted zone & other issues related with it. The board submitted report
on 22 March 2005 with its’ Findings :- Board assembled at 54 ASP(Air
Force Office) to assess : - quantum of compensation based on existing land
 rates of year 2005 .
Last meeting was held on 14 Oct. 2013 under the Chairmanship of Chief
Sec Hry at Civil Secretariat, & with Air HQ on 28 Oct - State Govt
officials were part of meetings held in office of D.C. Gurgm. It is
submitted that the compensation has neither been duly evaluated nor
projected by local administration to UoI.>>>>>>>
It reported 962 structures in restricted zone from records of office of DTP
(E) including Maruti, Pasco, Sectors - 5,14,17 & 18

21.02.2011 H’ble Mr.Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi &…..:Court took notice of “

Counsel of the State of Hry submits that the Govt. shall consider the
possibility of preparing a Scheme to either rehabilitate persons who
D pdf
have raised unauthorized houses or a Scheme that would require these
32730k persons to conform to all the rules, regulations laid down for construction
Rp>487
of bldgs within the urban area of Gurg.”
For this lot of people individually filed affidavits accepting/ opting for
In COCP Govt. proposed scheme, though stating that “ They constructed structures
972/2010
Also in H.C. under the bonafide belief that construction is deemed to have been
orders file regularized as Huda developed residential/commercial sectors 17 & 18
(which are within the restricted Area)

30.09.2015 MoD thereafter files Affidavit: reducing safety zone to 300 mts. subject
to State Govt. makes it encroachment free in defined time frame.

13.04.2018 Finally through www.gurugram.gov.in D.C.Gurugram posts notices:

4. Under Sec.8–Report of properties falling within 300 mts.

(458page pdf)
5. Under Sec. 9 – Asking interested persons with in 300 mts - to
file claims of compensation by 15 May 2018.
6. Above notices also disseminated in English & Hindi news papers
on 14.4.2018 with MoD’s earlier 8 notifications from 1987 to the
latest one dtd. 24.08.2017
22-10-2018 (no sign of final hearing) – instead, Collector Gurgn. (through Solicitor
Gen. Mr. Satpal Jain) files affidavit dtd.21-10-2018 – Playing another
ploy in stalling the whole process of final hearing – that state is finally
calling tenders from firms for evaluation assessment of compensation
within 300 mts.
((CJ- suggests Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshay Bhan & Adnl.S.G. Mr. Satpal Jain to
work out arrangement within themselves for release of electric
connection beyond the 300 mts.))