CWP No. 6956 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6956 of 1986 Date of decision: 30.08.2010 Ganga Parshad and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. I.D.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Haryana. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 17.11.1982 (P-1) proposing to acquire 83.78 Acres of land including 10 Kanals 4 Marlas of land of the petitioners. Further challenge is to the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 10.12.1984 (P-3) for acquisition of 75.32 Acres of land. It is case of the petitioners that they are the owners of land bearing Khasra No.8//20/3 and 21 min. It is stated by the petitioners that they had raised construction (residential houses) over the land in dispute. CWP No. 6956 of 1986 2 The constructed residential houses of others were left out of acquisition, however, the same relief was not granted to the petitioners. Upon notice, reply has been filed. Paragraph No. 13 of the reply reads thus:- “13. That in reply to para No. 13, it is submitted that as already stated, the Government has already taken a policy decision regarding not to acquire the built up areas existing at the time of notification u/s-4, Hence, the circumstances prevailing in the acquisition of land in Sector 12-A and under the impugned notification are quite different. It is further submitted that some houses of the petitioners which were built up before the issuance of notification u/s-4 in khasra No. 8//20/3 and 21 min were left out of acquisition along with 1 kanal 3 marla land.” Besides as above, in Paragraph Nos. 6, 8 and 9, it is specifically stated that whatever construction was in existence before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act along with 1 Kanal 3 Marlas of vacant land, was left out of acquisition. If that is so, we feel that no grievance appears to have been left with the petitioners. Further more, admittedly this writ petition was filed after passing of Award on 21.09.1986. Possibly in view of the ratio of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal CWP No. 6956 of 1986 3 Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698 and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280, this writ petition cannot be entertained. In view of facts mentioned in the written statement, this writ petition stands disposed of. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE August 30, 2010 pj