C.W.P. No. 852 OF 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. C.W.P. No. 852 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.1.2008 Partap Singh and Others …Petitioners through Mr.Pankaj Maini, Advocate. Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspaper 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? Vijender Jain, Chief Justice. Petitioners having tried every trick in their sleeve to resist acquisition, which has been made by the respondents, lost in each round of litigation. Petitioners are persistent with the filing of petitions including present petition with hope that one day or another they may succeed. The present petition is another attempt in which again the petitioners have to fail for the reasons enumerated hereinafter. C.W.P. No. 852 OF 2008 2 The petitioners have stated that they were owners of total land measuring 53.4 kanals, situated in village Choma (now called as Palam Vihar, Sector 2, Gurgaon) i.e. killa No. 60/21, 62/24, 61/24, 61/25, 61/26, 75/4, 75/3/2, 75/5 and 76/1 since the year 1944. It can be inferred that having learnt that the land will be acquired and in order to save the same, they have created a Trust and converted the land into small temple. The trust was created and named as “Hansa Devi Mandir Trust”. On 1.9.1997, respondents issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) to which objections under Section 5 of the Act were filed. On 1.8.2000, Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Haryana, passed an award qua the land in dispute, which was acquired. Petitioners filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 12560 of 2002 challenging notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, which was dismissed on 13.8.2002 by this Court vide Annexure P6. The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the petition observed as under:- “In our view, challenge to very notifications in other writ petitions, would make no difference. In so far as petitioner is concerned, she is not in possession. Once, possession is taken, pursuant to notifications under Sections 4 and 6 and compensation paid, no writ would be competent. There is no mention in this petition as to when possession was taken. So much so, there is no prayer in the petition for staying dispossession of the C.W.P. No. 852 OF 2008 3 petitioner as well. Finding no merit in this petition, we dismiss the same in limine”. The above said order passed in the Civil Writ Petition was challenged before Hon'ble the Apex Court by preferring Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 9823 of 2002. The same was dismissed on 10.1.2003. Hansa Devi Trust through Trustees received compensation amounting to Rs.1,31,29,475/- vide account payee cheque. Having lost in this Court and Hon'ble the Apex Court, petitioners have filed a civil suit before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, restraining the respondents from demolishing the temple. We fail to appreciate as to how and on what basis learned Vacation Judge, Gurgaon, on 10.7.2007, had granted stay in favour of the temple trust which the petitioners claim to represent. This injunction has been further extended. Petitioners have also preferred a Civil Writ Petition bearing No. 18228 of 2007, which was dismissed as withdrawn by a Division Bench of this Court on 3.12.2007. In the present petition, prayer made is that a Writ in the nature of certiorari be issued to quash the advertisement dated 28.3.2002 vide which the respondents had invited the applications for allotment of freehold residential plots in Sector 42, 1 & 2 (Palam Vihar), Gurgaon, as no plots have been earmarked for oustees in the oustees quota. It has been further prayed that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents to allot plots to the petitioners according to policy in Sector 2, Gurgaon. C.W.P. No. 852 OF 2008 4 Once the earlier petition has been dismissed as withdrawn, this petition cannot be entertained and is to be dismissed. Grant of plot to oustees is a benevolent act of the State. The land, as per the petitioners, vested in the temple trust, when the same was acquired. Compensation has been received by the temple trust. Once petitioners in order to thwart acquisition had created a trust, now they cannot claim plot in oustees quota in their individual capacity. Therefore, present petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. (Vijender Jain) Chief Justice (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge January 21, 2008 “DK”