IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3817 of 1990 Date of decision: 22.03.2011 Dhani Ram …..Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of CWP Nos.3817, 3892 of 1990 and 569 of 1991, involving similar question of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP No.3817 of 1990. This writ petition has been filed against a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 16.12.1988, proposing to acquire 139.74 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Garhi Brahaman, besides land falling in some other villages. The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, ‘for the development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area in Sector 23, Sonepat’. Further challenge has been made to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act on 13.12.1989 for the land measuring 138.06 acres of the above said village. In the writ petition, it is stated that the land of the petitioner falls in khasra No.51//20/2 and land of his neighbour Smt.Sona Devi and Civil Writ Petition No.3817 of 1990 Smt.Lakshmi Devi falls in Khasra No.51//19 measuring about 5 kanal, wherein they had constructed an industrial shed only and even then that land was ordered to be released, whereas residential house of the petitioner was ordered to be acquired arbitrarily. Heard counsel for the parties. In response to the notice issued, reply was filed. Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the reply read thus:- “4. That in reply to para No.4 of the Civil Writ Petition, it is submitted that the land bearing khasra Nos.51//19 and 51//20/2 was notified u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land bearing khasra No.51//20/2 was owned by the petitioner and the land bearing khasra No.51//19 was owned by Smt.Sohna Devi etc. In the land bearing khasra No.51//19 there was a factory over a part of the land measuring 2 kanals 10 marlas owned by Smt.Sohna Devi. Rest of the land was vacant and has been included in the declaration u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The allegations of the petitioner that the land measuring 5 kanals has been left out of acquisition is wrong and hence denied. The petitioner filed objections u/s 5A of the Land Acquisition Act on 12.1.89 and not on 10.1.89 as alleged in the said para. A notice of hearing of objection u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act was served on the petitioner fully in accordance with law and the petitioner appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector on 28.8.89 and in token his appearance and hearing given to the petitioner put his signatures. The 2 Civil Writ Petition No.3817 of 1990 allegation of the petitioner that the objectors were told that their objection will be considered is wrong and hence denied. The objections were considered, hearing was given in the presence of the petitioner. 5. That para No.5 of the Civil Writ Petition is wrong and hence denied. There is no general policy not to acquire the land having construction over it. However, in the case mentioned by the petitioner the land was left out of acquisition as there was large construction in one block and there were high tention wires and the land could not be utilized by HUDA.” A reading of contents of the written statement makes it very clear that in the land measuring 2 kanal 10 marla, owned by Smt.Sohna Devi, a factory was in existence and rest of the land was lying vacant, which was included in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, whereas in the land owned by the petitioner a residential house was not in existence, only ‘C’ class construction measuring only 30 square yards was in existence. It is further stated in the reply that the said temporary construction appears to have been raised with a mala fide intention, may be, to frustrate the acquisition. No replication has been filed by the petitioner to the written statement filed by the Land Acquisition Collector. Before us also, at the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has failed to show that the facts given in the written statement were not correct. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 3 Civil Writ Petition No.3817 of 1990 22.03.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4