CWP No.7718 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 7718 of 2008 Date of decision 9 .5.2008 Shakuntala Yadav and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal,Advocate for the petitioners M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos 7706 and 7718 of 2008 as common question of law is involved in both the petitions. For the purposes of this judgement, facts are being taken from CWP No.7718 of 2008 The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing order dated 28.3.2008 ( Annexure P.10) passed by the High Powered Committee through its Chairman, Mini Secretariat, Chandigarh. The Committee was appointed on the basis of an order passed by this Court in CWP No.10845 of 2004 decided on 16.7.2005. The petitioners had earlier filed CWP No.10294 of 2004 and that petition was disposed of in terms of order dated 16.7.2005 passed in CWP No. 10845 of 2004. The claim of the petitioners for release of her land from acquisition has been rejected after granting personal hearing to them. It is pertinent to mention that land belonging to the petitioners alongwith others was intended to be acquired by notification dated CWP No.7718 of 2008 2 27.1.2003 ( Annexure P.1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration dated 5.12.2003 ( Annexure P.4) issued under Section 6 of the Act. The award has also been announced on 12.3.2004 ( Annexure P.7) . For quashing the afore- mentioned notification and award, the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.10294 of 2004 which was disposed of in terms of the directions issued on 16.7.2005 in CWP No.10845 of 2004. Accordingly the High Powered Committee has considered the case of the petitioners. It has been highlighted that possession of the land was taken by the Haryana Urban Development Authority on 12.3.2004 when the award was also announced. The possession, however, could not be taken on account of interim order of stay issued in the case of the petitioner on 15.7.2004 in CWP No.10294 of 2004 which was filed on 13.7.2004. In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, the High Powered Committee had rejected the claim as is evident from the perusal of paras 6,7 and 8 which reads thus: “ In compliance of the Hon'ble High Court's order in CWP No.10845 of 2004, the said committee gave the applicant an opportunity of personal hearing on 30.1.06, 22.2.06, 8.3.06, 5.4.06, 3.5.06, 19.5.06, 5.7.06, 4.8.06, 15.9.06. Sh. A.P.Setia, Advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner in CWP No.10294 of 204, he produced a typed copy of letter dated 21.12.1981 which was claimed to be from the Finance Minister, Haryana and he requested that his land be released on the basis of the direction given in the letter. The committee desired that the original letter be produced before the Committee, but he could not submit the same document before the committee. CWP No.7718 of 2008 3 The petitioner has requested for release of 1.23 acres land falling in khasra No. 23///8/1, 8/2,9/2, 12/2, 13/1 in village Sahaul. The award of this khasra number was announced on 12.3.2004. The possession of the land was given vide rapat no.395 dated 12.3.2004 to HUDA on the same date. In fact the petitioner had two pockets of land measuring 1.23 acres falling in khasra No. 23//8/1, 8/2.,9/2 12/3, 13/1 and 0.25 acres falling in khasra No. 23//10/1. The applicants had applied for change of land use of these khasra numbers for setting up of information technology unit on 5.12.05 in the office of Director, Town and Country Planning. The said application was returned vide No. G 1721 AD(B) 2006/9881 dated 21.4.2006 mentioning that the applied land is under acquisition and the applicants were asked to get the land released and then apply for change of land use permission. The land is already acquired and HUDA has taken a possession of land of other land owners vide Rapat Rojnamcha dated 12.3.2004. It was also informed by Chief Town Planner (HUDA) that HUDA has planned industrial plots on this land and allotted 11 No. of such plots. It was noted that land of the applicant is lying vacant. Since mentioned above the land is awarded, possession of the adjoining land stands taken and also stands allotted by HUDA, therefore, the land of the petitioner mentioned in CWP No. 10294/2004 and 14669 of 2005 cannot be considered for release.” We have heard Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioner CWP No.7718 of 2008 4 at a considerable length and find that there is no merit in the instant petition because the petitioners had filed even CWP No.10294 of 2004 after the expiry of four months of the announcement of the award and taking of possession by HUDA on 12.3.2004. The petitioners had filed the writ petition on 13.7.2004. Moreover, the application for change of land use has been made on 5.12.2005 which is much after the date of taking possession and announcement of award. The application was returned on 21.4.2006 with the remarks that the land is under acquisition and the petitioners were to apply for change of land use only after getting the land released because possession of the land had already been taken by HUDA. It has further been pointed out that Chief Town Planner, HUDA has intimated the High Powered Committee that industrial plots on this land has been planned and 11 such plots stand already allotted and that the land of the petitioner was lying vacant. The only argued raised by Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, learned counsel for the petitioners is that vide letter dated 21.11.1981 the Finance Minister, Haryana, had recommended the release of the land and the High Powered Committee had refused to consider the letter by stating that original had not been produced. He has drawn our attention to the letter dated 21.12.1981 ( Annexure P.2) and argued that if this letter was accepted then the High Powered Committee would have felt persuaded to release the land from acquisition. We are, however, not impressed with the afore-mentioned argument because once possession of the land has been taken then under Section 16 of the Act, the land vests in the State free from all encumbrances. The High Powered Committee or even the Government would not be competent to release such land from acquisition by virtue of provisions of CWP No.7718 of 2008 5 Section 48 of the Act. The afore-mentioned provisions have been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Mandir Shree Sita Ramji v. Land Acquisition Collector (2005) 6 SCC 745 and Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh v. Avinesh Sharma AIR 1970 SC 1576 and Banglore Development Authority v. R.Hanumiaiah (2005) 12 SCC 508. For the reasons stated above, both the petitions fail and the same are dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 9 .5.2008 Judge okg