Residents of Ullahawas village in Gurgaon have filed a fresh petition in the Punjab and Haryana high court challenging the Haryana government's decision of giving land on lease to Rajiv Gandhi Charitable Trust (RGCT) and Church Gate Medical Society.
Taking up the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Dharambir and five other villagers, a division bench headed by justice MM Kumar issued the notice of motion to the Haryana government, RGCT, Church Gate Medical Society and gram panchayat of Ullahawas. The bench has directed all the respondents in the petition to file their replies before November 25.
The petitioners have submitted that the action by the state government has been taken with the sole motive to please the RGCT and Church Gate Medical Society.
On August 23, a division bench of the high court had directed Dharambir and others to withdraw a similar PIL and challenge the specific rules and prove how the favour has been done by the government.
Now, the petitioners have sought quashing of the state government orders dated December 6 last year vide which 40 kanals and 3 marlas of land of Ullahawas panchayat has been ordered to be released from acquisition despite issuance of notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in order to facilitate RGCT to set up an eye hospital and research centre.
It has been submitted that the land has been released in favour of the lessee i.e. RGCT rather than the land owner i.e. village panchayat. This time the petitioners have also challenged the validity and vires of Punjab village common lands (regulations) rules, 1964 as applicable to Haryana.
Violation of act
The petitioners have also sought quashing of the orders vide which 9 kanals of land which has been leased out to Church Gate Medical Society with its main office at Tilak Nagar, New Delhi vide lease deed dated July 1, 2009. It has been submitted that the said land has also been left out of the acquisition by excluding the land in the notification issued under section 6 of Land Acquisition Act.
It was submitted that this is despite the fact that the land is vacant and no objections under section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act were filed and the lease deed was executed after the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Thus in accordance with Haryana's policy dated October 26, 2007, the land could not have been left out of the acquisition while issuing notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, it was submitted.