PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No. 21500 of 2008. *** Hazoor Singh and others Vs. The State of Haryana and others. *** CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta. *** Present: Shri V.K.Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. It assails the validity of a preliminary notification dated March 05, 2008 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a declaration dated November 06, 2008 under Section 6 of the Act (supra) whereby certain extent of land has been notified for extension of Grain Market in the Sub Yard at Jhansa. When this petition initially came up before us on December 22, 2008 for admission Mr. Kaushik, Addl: A.G.Haryana was directed to take instructions as to why Ajrana Grain Market which is at a distance of about 8 Kms from the proposed Jhansa Grain Market was not being put to proper use and why the same was not being declared as Sub- yard under the Punjab Agricultural Produces Markets Act, 1961.That direction was issued by us, keeping in view the statement made on behalf of the petitioners that the Agricultural Grain Market constructed at considerable expense was not made functional by the respondents on account of neglect and apathy and that the proposed acquisition of land at Jhansa for setting up of another Grain Market was wholly unnecessary and wasteful. Mr. Kaushik has pursuant to the directions issued by this Court filed a written statement on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 in which it -2- CWP No. 21500 of 2008 has been inter alia stated that the Ajrana sub-yard of Shahbad is functional, no matter the turn over of the sales is not sizable. In para No.8 of the written statement, the respondents have given the figures of the produces sold in the said sub-yard and also the market fee recovered by the Market Committee. It is submitted by Mr. Kaushik that the government is ready to take all such steps as would make the sub-yard Ajrana functional. Mr. Jindal, counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that although the writ petition has challenged the validity of the preliminary notification and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in relation to the proposed extension of Sub Yard, Jhansa, the petitioners confine their grievance to making Ajrana Grain Market, functional. He submitted that appropriate directions could be issued to the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, Panchkula - respondent No.2 in the petition to take steps to ensure that Ajrana Mandi becomes functional and useful for the farmers of the region. Mr. Kaushik, counsel appearing for the respondents had no objection to such a direction being issued. He submitted that if the petitioners made a suitable representation pointing out the steps that need to be taken by the Marketing Board, the matter shall be examined and appropriate orders passed on the subject. In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the statement made at the Bar, we are not called upon to examine the validity of the impugned notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The challenge to the said notifications having been given up by Mr. Jindal, the respondents shall be free to act upon those notifications and extend the Sub Yard, Jhansa in the manner proposed by them. We, however, see no reason why the Ajrana Mandi which has been set up years ago should not be made fully functional by the authorities by taking appropriate steps in that direction. As to what are the deficiencies in the said market, which are keeping the farmers away from -3- CWP No. 21500 of 2008 the said market, is a matter that need not be examined in the present proceedings. The ends of justice would in our opinion be sufficiently served if we direct that the petitioners shall make a suitable representation pointing out the deficiencies in the Ajrana Market and seek appropriate directions from the Marketing Board. In case, any such representation is made within two months, respondent No.2, the Chief Administrator, Marketing Board, Panchkula shall look into the same and take appropriate steps considered necessary to make Ajrana Market fully functional. The writ petition is with the above observations disposed of. No costs. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Hemant Gupta) Judge January 31, 2009 Malik