IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19991 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 22.12.2009 Nand Kishore .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR resent: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notifications dated 3.1.2007 (Annexure P-5) and 2.1.2008 (Annexure P-6) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), respectively, whereby land measuring 20.41 acres, 2.89 acres, 208.28 acres and 35.88 acres in four villages, namely Takhana, Padhana, Dodwa and Shyam Garh, District Karnal, respectively, has been acquired for the public purpose, namely for the development and utilisation of land as Residential, Commercial, Transport and Communication area for Sector-1, Taravari. It is the case of the petitioner that he is owner in possession of 8 Kanals of land comprised in Rectangle No. 27, Killa No. 4 Min North (5- CWP No. 19991 of 2009 -2- 10) and 5 Min North (2-10), situated in village Dodwa, District Karnal, and in the said land, orchard of the petitioner, consisting of mango, guava and lemon trees, is existing for the last more than 10 years. Undisputedly, the petitioner did not file objections under Section 5-A of the Act, objecting the acquisition of his land for the aforesaid public purpose. It is the case of the petitioner that a separate notice is required to be served by respondent No.2 on the petitioner, enabling him to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act, therefore, without providing an opportunity to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act, the respondents have issued notification under Section 6 of the Act, acquiring the land of the petitioner. On merits, the petitioner alleges that while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act, the respondents have released the land of certain influential persons and have, thus, acted discriminately. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the site plan, annexed with the petition, we do not find any merit in this petition. It is not the case of the petitioner that the notification under Secton 4 of the Act was not duly issued/published. It is also not his case that the substance of the notification was not given at convenient places in the locality, where the acquired land is situated. The petitioner is alleging that no notice was served upon by respondent No.2 to enable him to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The provisions of the Act do not require issuance of such notice to the land owners after publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act to enable them to file CWP No. 19991 of 2009 -3- objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Since in spite of the notification being published in two news papers and substance of notification being given at convenient places in the locality, the petitioner did not file any objection, his objection to the acquisition of his land does not survive at all. As far as the alleged discrimination is concerned, we have seen the site plan. The land of the petitioner is situated in the middle of the acquired land. All the land around his land has been acquired, therefore, we do not find any case of discrimination. The particulars of the land which is alleged to have been released under Section 6 of the Act have not been properly mentioned in the writ petition to enable the Court to appreciate the alleged discrimination. In absence of any such material, we do not find any ground to interfere in the matter. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 22, 2009 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) ndj JUDGE