CWP No. 1807 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1807 of 2006 Date of decision: 01.12.2010 Raj Bail Singh ….. PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana etc. ….. RESPONDENT CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ` Present: Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A. G. Haryana. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed to impugn the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act) on 15.11.2002 and 12.11.2003 respectively. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that without any justification, running unit of the petitioner is going to be acquired whereas in the case of many others, on representations made, their factories were released from acquisition. Perusal of the record indicates that in the case of the petitioner CWP No. 1807 of 2006 2 also, sufficient land was released, in which sheds, quarters etc. were existing at the time when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. The land was released on recommendations made by a High Powered Committee. Extract from the report is placed on record as Annexure P-13, relevant portion reads thus:- “ 7 1268/04 Samrat Ceremics 10//4/2 (6K-0M) 3/2/1 (0K-8M) 3/3/1 (2K-1M), 4/1 (1K-12M) 5/1 (4K-12M), 7//23/2 (0K-7M) .Structure, bundary wall, sheds, quarters existing at the time of u/s 4. . CLU not obtained The sites are at two different locations. The Committee recommends that the one site on NH8 be acquired and the second one away from the NH8 should be released after meeting the requirement of the continuity of roads and necessary infrastructure as per the lay out plan, remaining land should be released from acquisition. 8 1692/04 R.BSing h & others 10//4/2 (6K-0M) . Boundary wall existing . CLU not obtained Except 50 mtr. Green belt along NH-8 the committee recommends the release of Industrial Unit and open area proportionate to the constructed area as per rules be left at the time of integrated planning and as adjusted in the layout plan” It is also not in dispute that some other portion of the land owned by the petitioner had already been released on recommendations made by an another Committee. So far as land in this writ petition is concerned, it falls in Khasra No. 9/20 (2-1) and 358, 9/11 (1-18). It is specific stand of the respondents that qua this land, no objection was filed by the petitioner, rather objection was filed by one Dhuli Chand, who had already sold this land to the petitioner way back in the year 1990. Otherwise also, it is apparent from the record that even Dhuli Chand was not owner of the land in dispute. He was only in possession of the same. CWP No. 1807 of 2006 3 In view of relief earlier granted to the petitioner, no case for interference is made out. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE December 01, 2010 pj