IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23363 of 2010 Date of decision: 05.08.2011 Amar Singh and another …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.S.S.Patter, Sr.DAG Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM Nos.10501, 10508, 10509, 10540 of 2011 Applications allowed, replications to the written statements filed by the respondents are taken on record. CWP No.23363 of 2010 This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing Nos.23363 of 2010 and 23372 of 2010, involving similar question of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from CWP No.23363 of 2010. In CWP No.23363 of 2010, the petitioners are the owners of 11 kanal 17 marla of land, which is subject matter of acquisition initiated by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 23.8.2007. A declaration was issued on 14.1.2009. Civil Writ Petition No.23363 of 2010 It is case of the petitioners that before the issuance of above notifications, they had filed two applications to get change of land use certificate, as per provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (in short, 1963 Act). For a piece of land measuring 5 kanal 8 marla, their application was declined vide order dated 1.6.2010. Regarding rest of the land measuring 6 kanal 9 marla, no order has been passed. Similarly, in CWP No.23372 of 2010, the petitioners moved an application to get change of land use certificate as per under the provisions of 1963 Act, which was rejected on 1.6.2010. Petitioners therein are owners of 9 kanal 14 marla of land. In both the cases, appeals were filed, which were dismissed on 20.12.2010. When dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioners ( in Civil Writ Petition No. 23363 of 2010) it was stated as under:- “After hearing both the parties and going through the record carefully, I am of the view that the Director, Local Bodies vide his order dated 1.6.2000 has given detailed reasons for rejecting the request. The main ground for rejection is that the land is under acquisition and the areas to be developed as residential sector for HUDA. Further, Section 6 has also been imposed. So far as the argument that land has been released in adjoining area, the same may have been done by HUDA under its policy. In view of above, there being no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.” Before the appellate authority, the petitioners have raised various contentions, including that, the land surrounding their land, by giving change of land use certificates, it was released from acquisition. It 2 Civil Writ Petition No.23363 of 2010 was further stated that the petitioners want to construct residential houses and a commercial complex on their land as per the norms. It was also stated that the land owned by VPN Real Estate was left out of acquisition after granting a licence as per the provision of Section 203F of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. None of the averments made by the petitioners were discussed and dealt with by the appellate authority. The matter was disposed of simply by stating that sufficient reasons were given to decline prayer made by the petitioners, by the Director Local Bodies. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court on 24.12.2010:- “By making reference to site plan (P9), counsel for the petitioners states that possibly land owned by the petitioners cannot be amalgamated for development of Sector 21 for which land was initially acquired because the area shown Yellow and blue has been released from acquisition by granting CLU. Notice of motion for 25.2.2011. Put up for hearing along with CWP No.23372 of 2010 Dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed till further orders. The petitioners are also restrained from raising any construction, over the land, in dispute.” We have also seen the site plan put on record by the petitioners (P24), which clearly depicts that the averments made by the petitioners are correct. On one side of their land a road passes and on other three sides, licenced colonies exist. This fact also was not controverted by the respondents in their written statement. An objection has been raised to the 3 Civil Writ Petition No.23363 of 2010 release of land only by stating that high tension electric wire passes over the land in dispute. But at the time of arguments, Mr.Patter has fairly admitted that the electric line also passes through the land for which licences have been granted. Another objection has been raised that change of land use certificate cannot be granted because land is under acquisition, as notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued on 23.8.2007. We have seen that in many cases change of land use certificates were issued after initiation of the acquisition proceedings. It is necessary to mention here that the petitioners have also laid challenge to the acquisition proceedings in this writ petition. At this stage, we are not looking into the objections raised by the petitioners against acquisition in question. However, taking note of a fact that the appellate authority has passed an order on 20.12.2010, without any application of mind and without dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioners, at this stage, we quash the appellate order, mentioned above and remit the matter to the appellate authority to decide it afresh with a direction that the authority shall hear both the parties and then pass a detailed order. Objection of the petitioners to the acquisition in question shall remain open. It is further directed that the pending application moved by the petitioners qua other piece of land in this writ petition shall also be disposed of as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today, after giving an opportunity to the petitioners. The petitioners be at liberty to lay challenge to the order passed, if it is not in their favour. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 05.08.2011 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 4 Civil Writ Petition No.23363 of 2010 5