IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10361 of 2004 Date of decision: November 18, 2008 M/s N. Pauls Bakers …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Ishwar Lal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR & JORA SINGH, JJ. This order shall dispose of a bunch of three petitions2 challenging notification bearing No. LAC (F)-2002/NTLA-95 dated 17.4.2002 (Annexure P-7), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration bearing No. LAC(F)- NTLA-2003/157, dated 10.4.2003 (Annexure P-9), issued under Section 6 of the Act. A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to release the land of the petitioners from acquisition. The principal ground of challenge raised by the petitioners is that they after purchase of the land in the revenue estate of village Sarai Aurangabad, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, have raised ‘A’ Class construction prior to issuance of notification CWP No. 10361 of 2004 under Section 4 of the Act and a large number of running industrial units are in existence adjacent to the area belonging to the petitioners. For the aforementioned ground a site plan and some photographs have been brought on record by C.M. No. 3123 of 2008. Mr. Ishwar Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the orange portions marked as Saini Plastics, National Lubricants and N. Pauls Bakers, which belongs to the petitioners, and submitted that the buildings raised by the petitioners is being used for commercial purposes and the construction is old. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, has, however, drawn our attention to the averments made in para 1 of the preliminary submissions made in the written statement and argued that C.W.P. No. 12764 of 2004 (Om Parkash Tehlan v. State of Haryana) in respect of the same notifications, which are subject matter of challenge in these petitions, has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 6.9.2003 (R-1). He has further pointed out that another petition bearing C.W.P. No. 11370 of 2003 (Rani v. State of Haryana and others) was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.4.2004. The claim by the petitioners that construction of the building was raised before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act has not been denied and it has been asserted in para 6 of the written statement filed by respondent No. 4 that no land/construction in the village Sarai Aurangabad has been released from acquisition. These petitions also belong to the same village. The request of the petitioners for exemption of the land from acquisition has not been 2 CWP No. 10361 of 2004 accepted and their objections filed under Section 5A of the Act have been rejected. Having heard learned counsel at a considerable length we are of the view that no cause for interference in the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents is made out, especially when the acquisition proceedings have already been upheld in various writ petitions including C.W.P. Nos. 11370 of 2003 and 12764 of 2003 (supra). The ground of discrimination raised by the petitioners has not impressed us because the land or construction of no one in village Sarai Aurangabad has been exempted from acquisition. The area/property belonging to the petitioners is even otherwise situated in the midst of the whole track and according to the authorities may interfere with their planning. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in the acquisition proceedings. For the reasons aforementioned, these petitions fails and the same are hereby dismissed. (M.M KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) November 18, 2008 JUDGE ritu/Pkapoor 3 2 1. M/s Saini Plastics v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 10344 of 2004); 2. M/s N. Paul Bakers v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 10361 of 2004); and 3. M/s National Lubricants v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 10367 of 2004).