C.M. No. 9837 of 2010 and 1 CWP No. 7667 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 9837 of 2010 and CWP No. 7667 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.07.2010 Martha Matthewsw/o Sh. Ajit Kumar Matthews ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 9837 of 2010 C.M. is allowed. Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 3 is taken on record. CWP No. 7667 of 2010 Petitioner is the owner of a plot measuring 200 Sq. Yards bearing No. 25, situated in Vishnu Garden Colony, Jagadhri. She purchased the above-said plot on 01.05.2001. Vide notification dated C.M. No. 9837 of 2010 and 2 CWP No. 7667 of 2010 30.05.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). The respondent-State proposed to acquire a vast track of land (561.38 Acres) including land of the petitioner. Notification was issued under Section 6 of the Act on 22.05.2006 for an area measuring 444.71 acres. Award was pronounced only with regard to 354.50 acres of land. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that in principle, it was decided not to acquire land of Vishnu Garden Colony, which was subject matter of acquisition. To say so, reference was made to the proceedings of Joint Site Inspection Committee dated 25.01.2006 (P-4). The above-said Committee took note of a fact that within the municipal limit, the four colonies namely Rakshak Vihar, Satsang Vihar, Atam Nagar and Vishnu Garden were regularized by the Government vide order passed in December, 2004 i.e. before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act) and it was decided as under:- “ The areas under regularized colonies and TP Scheme will be exempted from the notification u/s 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The demarcation of these colonies will be given by Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Jagadhri.” It is clear from the records that in terms of decision taken, constructed houses and vacant plots falling in the above-said colonies, were left out of the acquisition. It is the case of the petitioner that area of Vishnu Garden colony is 19.5 acres. Due to some mistake at the part of the Municipal Engineer, area measuring 9.5 acres only was exempted from acquisition and rest of the area was ordered to be acquired. Under above- C.M. No. 9837 of 2010 and 3 CWP No. 7667 of 2010 mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner was forced to file this writ petition. Upon notice, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that only area, under construction, was ordered to be released from acquisition whereas the vacant area was ordered to be acquired vide notification mentioned above. It was further stated in the reply that along with constructed area, some vacant land was also released, which was needed for proper utilization of constructed Areas. The right of the petitioner was negatived by stating that she had filed this petition after the passing of the Award, as such the same be dismissed. After hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that a grave injustice has been done to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the Joint Site Inspection Committee recommended the release of the area falling in four colonies mentioned above. Admittedly, the plot of the petitioner is situated in Vishnu Garden Colony. It is also an admitted fact that the constructed houses and vacant plots were left out of the acquisition in the said colony. It is also not in dispute that in favour of the developers, area measuring 100 acres was released. If that is so, we feel that the authorities cannot discriminate so far as the poor citizens are concerned. It has also come on record that vide order dated 14.05.2008, in response to orders passed by this Court, in various writ petitions, Director, Urban Estates Department, Haryana, released many plots situated in Vishnu Garden Colony. Under similar circumstances, other plots were released by passing an order on 21.08.2008 (P-16). To get the plot of the petitioner released from acquisition, her counsel has placed reliance C.M. No. 9837 of 2010 and 4 CWP No. 7667 of 2010 upon an order of this Court passed in R.A. No. 326 of 2008 in CWP No. 13413 of 2007 on 09.10.2009. In that application, dispute was also with regard to a plot situated in Vishnu Garden colony. By taking note of various facts, the Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- “ In the reply filed to the application, the aforesaid plea taken by the applicant-petitioners has not been controverted. The fact that the plots of the petitioners are situated in regularized colony and other similar plots have been released from acquisition by various orders of the Director have also not been controverted. Therefore, the re mere fact that the applicant-petitioners did not file any objections under Section 5-A of the Act would not bar their entitlement to get their plots released from acquisition as the plots belonging to the petitioners are surrounded either by houses or other released plots. Therefore, it follows that the petitioners cannot be singled out for any harsh treatment and have to be given the same benefit as has been given to other plot holders specially when the Vishnu Garden colony has been regularized by Respondent-State itself. In view of the above, we recall order dated 05.08.2008 and direct that the plots belonging to the petitioners comprising in Khasra No. 37//5 and 38//1/2 be also released from acquisition. The main petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.” C.M. No. 9837 of 2010 and 5 CWP No. 7667 of 2010 It is not in dispute that after passing of the order mentioned above, the land of the right holders (petitioners therein) was released. It is also apparent from the order passed by the Division Bench that the right holders did not even file objections under Section 5-A of the Act in view of the decision taken by the Joint Site Inspection Committee. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this writ petition and set aside the acquisition of the plot of the petitioner measuring 200 Sq. yards bearing No. 25 and the plot of the petitioner is ordered to be released from acquisition subject to the condition that if plot of the petitioner falls in any road alignment carved out by the authorities, the petitioner be offered an alternative plot of the same size in the proposed scheme. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE July 28, 2010 pj C.M. No. 9837 of 2010 and 6 CWP No. 7667 of 2010