IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.2628 of 2004 Date of decision: 16.4.2009 Jagdish Singh Dhillon -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G.Punjab for the State. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.: 1. This petition seeks quashing of notification dated 10.12.2002 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, ‘the Act’) and notification dated 31.10.2003 under section 6 of the Act. The purpose of acquisition is for construction of new District Administrative Complex at Hoshiapur. 2. Case of the petitioners is that earlier for the same purpose, notification dated 11.8.2000 was issued to which objections were filed to the effect that the Complex could be set up on alternative site as construction on the present site will upset the ecological balance and there is no proper approach to the proposed CWP No.2628 of 2004 (O&M) complex. Proceedings were allowed to lapse but thereafter, fresh acquisition process was initiated by invoking urgency clause. Objections of the petitioners have been rejected. 3. Notice was issued with reference to the contention that there was no justification for invoking urgency clause as there was a gap of 10 months in notification under section 4 and notification under section 6 of the Act. 4. In the reply filed, it is stated that the State had already constructed District Administrative Complex over the adjoining Zila Parishad land. There are 26 government offices. The land in question is required for parking of vehicles. The earlier notification lapsed as the land proposed therein was not sufficient. Urgency clause was justified as the complex had already been constructed and difficulty was being faced without parking. Objections of the petitioners were rejected. Necessary funds required to be paid under section 17(3A) of the Act have already been made available. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It has not been disputed that the Administrative complex has already been constructed on Zila Parishad land which is adjacent to the land now proposed to be acquired. It cannot, thus, be said that there is no urgency for acquiring the land for the 2 CWP No.2628 of 2004 (O&M) purpose of parking, as stated on behalf of the State. No other illegality has been shown. 7. In view of above, we are unable to hold that invocation of urgency clause was not justified or that there was no justification for the impugned notification. 8. The petition is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 16, 2009 (Jitendra Chauhan) ‘gs’ Judge 3 CWP No.2628 of 2004 (O&M) 4