IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8987 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.7.2010 Smt.Lachmi Devi and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.V.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Sr.DAG Haryana Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for HUDA Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM No.9665 of 2010 Application allowed, replication is taken on record. CWP No.8987 of 2009 This order will dispose of CWP Nos.8983, 8987, 8989, 8993, 9115, 9116, 9136, 9157 and 9160 all year of 2009, involving same notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act). For facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from CWP No.8987 of 2009. This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the notification dated 15.6.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Act, to acquire a vast track of land, including land of the petitioners. Further challenge is to the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 14.6.2007. Civil Writ Petition No.8987 of 2009 It is stated by the petitioners that in the land, which is subject matter of acquisition, they have constructed their residential houses, as per Policy of the State government, residential houses of the other land owners, were left out of acquisition, whereas, the said relief was not granted to the petitioners. In reply filed, it has been averred that none of the petitioners has filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act, except petitioner No.6, whose residential house, after looking into his grievance, was left out of acquisition. So far as petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are concerned, in view of ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698;Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280, writ petition at their instance is not maintainable. At the time of arguments, it was stressed before us that the petitioners are the poor persons and if their residential houses are acquired, it may not be possible for them to construct it again. It is further submitted that as per Policy of the government, constructed portion of a house is supposed to be left out of acquisition. Counsel for the petitioners has brought it to our notice that under similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 3.9.2008 in CWP No.3625 of 2008 titled as Parkash and others v. State of Haryana and others, directed the authorities to consider claim of the petitioners therein sympathetically. In view of above, we dispose of this writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioners to make a representation. The authorities shall 2 Civil Writ Petition No.8987 of 2009 consider their claim for release of residential houses sympathetically, if the construction does not interfere in the development plan. If the authorities are not agreeable to exempt their land in view of position explained earlier, it will not confer any right upon the petitioners to agitate the matter again before this Court. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 28.07.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3