IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No.9962 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.8.2009 Madan Lal Saini and others ....Petitioners. vs. State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. --- Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioners. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as have been noticed and adjudicated upon by this Court in Chandan Madan and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.10084 of 2009, decided on 5.8.2009), are reiterated herein.For the reasons recorded in Chandan Madan's case (supra), we find no merit therein, and the same are accordingly, hereby declined. The only additional contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that the petitioners have a plantation of herbal trees on the land (which is subject matter of acquisition), and that, in terms of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Devinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2007(4)RCR (Civil) 799, the State Government should not have acquired the land of the petitioners, which is good agricultural land, but efforts should have been made to acquire alternative barren waste land. We have considered the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph. It is not a matter of dispute that under the notifications vide which the land of the petitioners was sought to be acquired it has been CWP No.9962 of 2009 (2) stated that the same was being acquired for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of Industrial Estate,Phase-II,Manakpur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. It cannot be disputed that, as and when land is acquired for industrial purpose (as was the purpose for which the land was acquired in Devinder Singh's case), in case of availability of two kinds of land i.e., agricultural land and barren waste land, the choice should fall on barren waste land. However, it is not the case of the petitioners herein, that alternatively barren waste land (which could have been chosen by the respondents for the purpose of development envisaged in the acquisition notifications in and around Yamuna Nagar) was available. In the absence of any such choice with the respondents, reliance on the observations recorded by the Supreme Court in Devinder Singh's case (supra), is inconsequential. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Dismissed. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) Judge August 5, 2009, rk