CWP No.6060 of 1986 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6060 of 1986 (O&M) Decided on : 07.12.2010 Ram Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** JASBIR SINGH, J. By filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notifications dated 23.05.1983 and 20.11.1984 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively. It is coming out from the record that vide notifications mentioned above a vast chunk of land measuring 202.16 acres of land was ordered to be acquired including land of the petitioner. It is case of the petitioner that he owns 78 kanals 17 marlas of land along with his brothers and other co-sharers detail of which has been given in para No.2 of the writ petition. It is stated by the petitioner that he has constructed a residential house in khasra Nos.4649/1(1-2) and 4649/2 (0-14). It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that residential house of other's have been kept out from the land acquisition but the same relief has not been granted to the petitioner without any justification. CWP No.6060 of 1986 (O&M) -2- It is not in dispute that award in this case was passed on 17.3.1986 and the petitioner came to this court thereafter. On 20.08.2010 following order was passed by this Court: “Land measuring about 7 kanals is subject of acquisition. It is primary grievance of counsel for the petitioner that constructed portion of land of other right holders has been left out of acquisition whereas the same relief has not been granted to him. To say so, reference has been made to the site plan put on record. Perusal of the site plan indicates that the petitioner's house is situated on the main road and we feel that it can easily be adjusted without disturbing the overall planning of the area. The petitioner is in possession till today. Mr. Sehgal to get instructions in the matter. Adjourned to 21.09.2010. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Court.” Thereafter on 08.11.2010 following directions were issued by this court: “Sh.Sehgal is directed to file an affidavit in terms of the order passed by this court on 20.8.2010. In the affidavit to be filed, it be also stated as to whether any area in the vicinity of land of the petitioner on the main road was left out of acquisition or not. Reference be made in that regard to the site plan(Annexure P-7) on record of this writ petition. In the affidavit, it be further stated as to who was the owner of the disputed land and whether the land owner had received the compensation or not? Adjourned to 17.11.2010. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Court.” In response to the orders mentioned above, an affidavit of Sh. Vikas Yadav, Deputy Secretary, Urban Estates, Haryana has been CWP No.6060 of 1986 (O&M) -3- placed on record in which it has been specifically stated that adjoining land to the land of the petitioner which was owned by Ghanshyam Dass Goyal, was left out of acquisition, however, subsequent thereto it was re-acquired in the year 2002. It is further stated that so far as construction raised by the petitioner is concerned, it was of 'C' class structure and further that the land of the petitioner cannot be left from the acquisition because it will disturb planning of the entire area. Relevant contents of the affidavit reads thus: “That as per the report of the Land Acquisition Collector, Hisar, land of the petitioner falls in the shopping center in Sector 13(Part), Hisar and it was notified under Section 4 on 23.05.1983. The objections under Section 5-A were filed by the petitioner. Since construction at site was of 'C' class, the LAO as well as Joint Site Inspection Committee recommended that the land alongwith structures may be acquired. The structure was mainly being used for running a dairy and for keeping cattle, besides residential use. Accordingly, land of the petitioner was included in Section 6 and the declaration was issued on 20.11.1984. The award was announced on 20.11.1986. Therefore, in view of the fact that the award was announced in 1986 and 'C' class structure was being used for non-conforming use, it has been decided that the land of the petitioner cannot be released. That the land compromised in Khasra No.4644min, 4645min and 4646min measuring 1acre situated in Sector 13 P Hisar, belonging to Sh.Ghanshyam Dass Goyal was released vide letter No.A/3/94-1598-1601 dated 18.05.94 which was again acquired under Section 4 vide notification dated 25.06.02 and under Section 6 vide notification dated 28.03.03. The award was announced on 24.03.05. That as per report of the LAO Hisar, the award statement No.63, Kabjavasul Sr. No.177/1 Khasra CWP No.6060 of 1986 (O&M) -4- No.4649/2(1-0), the name of the owner is Rajender Nath and the compensation regarding the land is 9832/- which is lying unreceived.” In view of the facts mentioned above, this writ petition having been filed after passing of an award cannot be entertained in terms of ratio of a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sawaran Lata, etc. vs. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664. Furthermore, it is specifically stated in the written statement that no discrimination has been done with the petitioner in not releasing his land and further, if land of the petitioner is released, it will disturb planning of the entire area. In view of the facts mentioned above, this writ petition stands dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge December 07, 2010 (Augustine George Masih) sonia Judge