In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 1846 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 10, 2009 Nirmala Devi. … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others. .. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Khehar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand. Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate, and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.3. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition, the petition has assailed the notifications issued by the respondents on 03.08.2006 and 14.06.2007 (Annexures P/2 and P/4 respectively) under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). As a consequence of the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 14.06.2007, the land of the petitioner also came to be acquired. CWP No. 1846 of 2008 Immediately, after the notification dated 03.08.2006 was issued by the State Government, the petitioner filed her objections thereto under Section 5A of the Act. The petitioner first challenges the action of the respondents in acquiring her land by assailing the procedure adopted by the respondents. For this, the petitioner relies on Section 5A of the Act, and more particularly sub-section (2) thereof, so as to contend, that it was imperative for the Land Acquisition Collector while considering the objections filed by the petitioner to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted, that no such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, and as such, all proceedings, after the alleged consideration of objections filed by the petitioner, should be set aside, and the process should be re-initiated from the said stage. While impugning the process adopted by the respondents, it is submitted, that the provision and the mandate of the Act would essentially require the Land Acquisition Collector to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and only thereafter, it was open to the Land Acquisition Collector to pass an order on the objections filed by the petitioner. Since, the procedural requirement requires the objections to be determined at the hands of the Land Acquisition Collector before the issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, according to learned counsel, a direction needs to be issued to the respondents to comply with the aforesaid procedural requirement. It is also contended that in effectively, correcting the illegality committed by the respondents, the declaration issued by the respondents on 14.06.2007 under Section 6 of the Act, will have to be set aside as the stage for issuing a declaration under Section 6 2 CWP No. 1846 of 2008 aforesaid arises after the procedure envisaged under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act has concluded. The first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Our attention has been invited to the letter addressed by the Land Acquisition Collector dated 19.01.2007 wherein after considering the objections filed by the petitioner under Section 5A of the Act a recommendation was made for the release of the land of the petitioner – Nirmala Devi. We have perused a photocopy of the letter dated 19.01.2007 handed over to us in Court. The same is taken on record and marked as Annexure `A’. We have no doubt whatsoever in our mind that the authority vested in the Collector under Section 5A (2) of the Act, while being exercised by the Land Acquisition Collector resulted in passing of an order favourable to the petitioner, whereupon, the HSIDC made a recommendation to the State Government, that the land of the petitioner sought to be acquired through the notification dated 03.08.2006 (Annexure P/2 - issued under Section 4 of the Act), should be released. While dealing with the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, it is imperative for us to determine whether the process of hearing envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the Act, would be mandatory in the facts and circumstances of this case, when the Collector has admittedly in terms of Annexure `A’ recommended the release of the land of the petitioner, consequent upon the consideration of the objections filed by the petitioner, under Section 5A of the Act. We are satisfied, that the procedure envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the act envisages the grant of a complete and effective opportunity to the 3 CWP No. 1846 of 2008 land owner (or other interested person), to represent his/her claim for release of the land from the process of acquisition, consequent upon the expression of interest of the State Government to acquire the same (with the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act). This effective opportunity reflected in the legislative intent, would be required, only in a case wherein on the consideration of the written objections filed by a land owner (or other interested person), the Collector disagrees with the request of the land owner to release his/her land. However, when the Land Acquisition Collector in exercise of his jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the Act arrives at a conclusion in favour of the land owner, and makes a recommendation in favour of the land owner, for the release of his land (depicted in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act), hearing is in inconsequential. Hearing in such a situation would serve no purpose whatsoever, inasmuch as, an order is in any case being passed in favour of the land owner. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied, that the action of the respondents cannot be vitiated only because a hearing was not afforded to the petitioner, under sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the Act. In view of the above, we find no merit in the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The only issue that remains to be determined relates to the allotment of a plot to the petitioner under the policy instructions issued by the State Government dated 07.12.2007. A photocopy of the aforesaid policy instructions was handed over to us in Court. The same is taken on record and marked as Annexure `B’. The claim of the petitioner in terms of the policy instructions was also considered by this Court, and in reflected in 4 CWP No. 1846 of 2008 the motion Bench order dated 15.01.2009. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 informed us during the course of hearing, that the claim of the petitioner will be considered for allotment of a plot under the policy instructions (Annexure `B’), and in case, the petitioner is found to be entitled to the allotment of a plot, a favourable order will be passed. He also states, that in case the petitioner is not found entitled to the allotment of a plot, a well reasoned speaking order will be communicated to her. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondent No.3, learned counsel for the petitioner is agreed, that the instant petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to examine the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a plot under the policy instructions dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure `B’) within a reasonable time. In view of the submissions noticed hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the instant writ petition deserves to be disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the claim of the petitioner under the policy instructions dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure `B’), by passing a well reasoned speaking order, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to a plot, the same will be handed over to the petitioner at the earliest. The dispossession of the petitioner from the acquired land will be subject to the handing over a plot to the petitioner. In case, the claim of the petitioner is rejected, the petitioner shall hand over the vacant possession of the land in question to the respondents within one week from the date of receipt of the said order of rejection. In view of the order passed by us, we are also satisfied, that the deposit of Rs.20,000/- made by the petitioner in furtherance of the motion 5 CWP No. 1846 of 2008 bench order dated 07.02.2008, should be released to the petitioner forthwith. The Registry is accordingly directed to release the aforesaid amount to the petitioner. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge September 10, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 6