CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4091 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: July 29, 2010. Parties Name Chander Singh and another ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS State of Haryana and another ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih. PRESENT: Mr. Bhoop Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shriya Chahar Pajeta and Mr. Rajat Panjeta, Advocates, for the petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions No. 8274, 8275, 8238, 8391, 8255, 11127 and 8438 of 2007. Ms. Palika Monga, D.A.G., Haryana, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 4091 of 2007 and 3524 of 2009. Civil Writ Petitions No. 8238, 8255, 8274, 8275, 8391, 8438 and 11127, all of the year 2007, are also being disposed of by this order. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4091 OF 2007 -2- (A) C.W.P. No.4091 of 2007 & CWP No. 3524 of 2009: C.W.P. No. 4091 of 2007 has been filed by Chander Singh and Raj Kumar to lay challenge to notification dated December 21, 2005 (P-3), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) proposing to acquire a vast track of land including land of the petitioners. Further challenge is to a notification dated December 29, 2006 (P-4), issued under Section 6 of the Act. In the above said writ petition, it is case of the petitioners that their house exist in Khasras No. 75//2/2 and 66//16. It is their grievance that constructed houses of the other right holders were left out of acquisition whereas above said relief was not given to them. It is apparent from the records that land bearing Khasra No. 75//8 measuring 8 Kanals was also subject matter of above mentioned acquisition. However, subsequent thereto, the authorities of their own vide order dated May 25, 2007, released that land by exercising powers under Section 48(1) of the Act. Petitioner No. 2 in CWP No. 4091 of 2007 considering that his land has been left out of acquisition, raised aconstruction of his house over the land, mentioned above. Thereafter, the authorities issued another notification on February 15, 2008, under Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire Khasra No. 75//8. Petitioner No. 2 and his brother Ram Kumar filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act to the proposed acquisition. Objections were rejected and declaration was issued under Section 6 of the Act on January 15, 2009. Raj Kumar and Ram Kumar filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3524 of 2009 to lay challenge to the two subsequent notifications. In the reply, it has been stated by the respondents that to the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4091 OF 2007 -3- first acquisition , no objection was filed under Section 5-A of the Act by the petitioners in CWP No. 4091 of 2007. As such writ petition at their instance is not maintainable. Be that as it may, we cannot ignore a fact that in the first acquisition, houses of the petitioners, which were existing in Khasra No. 75//2/2 and 66//16 were acquired. No relief was given to them. However, of their own, the authorities released land falling in Khasra No. 75//8. The petitioners in CWP No. 3524 of 2009, after release of the land, constructed a house over the property in question. This fact was not denied and controverted at the time of arguments. It is also an admitted fact that constructed houses of many of the land owners were left out from acquisition It is further evident from the records that even a factory along with vacant portion of land was left out of acquisition by passing an order under Section 48 of the Act. If that is so, we are of the view that discrimination cannot be done to the petitioners. By passing an order in their favour under Section 48 of the Act on May 25, 2007, they were made to believe that land falling in Khasra No. 75//8 has been kept out of acquisition they raised their house thereon and now it will be injustice to them if that portion of the land is also allowed to be acquired by the respondents. Taking note of the situation as mentioned above , on July 15, 2010, we passed the following order in C.W.P. No. 4091 of 2007: “Mr. Ashwani Gupta, Additional Director, Industries Department is present in Court. The situation has been expressed to him. He says that after discussing the matter with the higher authorities and making a spot inspection, report would be submitted in this Court before the next date of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4091 OF 2007 -4- hearing. On request, adjourned to 27.07.2010. The officer shall also look into as to whether constructed portion of the petitioner in CWP No. 8238 of 2007 was left out or not when land measuring 4 Kanal and 11 Marlas was released from Khasra No. 10 Rect. No. 66. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases.” In compliance with above order, report has been submitted wherein it has been stated that the area falling in Khasra No. 75//2/2 cannot be left out of acquisition because there exists only one abandoned room measuring 15' x 25'. However, Photograph, annexed with the report, indicates that first floor was also constructed on the above said room. The acquisition was of the year 2007. Possession was taken thereafter. At present, the construction is supposed to be abandoned one. Be that as it may, authorities are not ready to ready to release the land. Under these circumstances this Court has no option except to direct the authorities to release land of the petitioners under construction along with proportionate vacant land falling in Khasra No. 75//8 as per policy of the Government. Remaining land of that Khasra number can be acquired. It is still left open to the authorities that if they are ready to leave Khasra No. 75//2/2, the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 3524 of 2009 shall be duty bound to surrender entire land falling in Khasra No. 75//8 and they shall be paid compensation for the construction thereon. With above said observations, these writ petitions stand disposed of. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4091 OF 2007 -5- (B) CWP No. 8438 of 2007: In this case, it is an admitted fact that objections to the proposed acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act were not filed. In terms of the ratio of the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. 14673 of 2007 (Nishi Gupta and others v. State of Haryana and others), rendered on July 8, 2008, this writ petition is not maintainable. Dismissed. (C) CWP No. 11127 of 2007: In this writ petition, it is an admitted fact that against the proposed acquisition, objections were not filed under Section 5-A of the Act. As per admitted position, 2 Kanals 19 Marlas of land was released from acquisition. In view of ratio of the judgment of this Court in Nishi Gupta's case (supra), this writ petition is dismissed. (D) CWP No. 8274 of 2007: In this writ petition, it is an admitted fact that against the proposed acquisition, objections were not filed under Section 5-A of the Act. In view of ratio of the judgment of this Court in Nishi Gupta's case (supra), this writ petition is dismissed. (E) CWP No. 8391 of 2007: In this writ petition, it is an admitted fact that against the proposed acquisition, objections were not filed under Section 5-A of the Act. Constructed portion of the petitioner along with vacant land was left out of acquisition. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (F) CWP No. 8238 of 2007: Vide order dated July 15, 2010, we directed the authorities to ascertain factual position at the spot. Report has been submitted, wherein it has been stated that virtually there exists no residential house in Khasra CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4091 OF 2007 -6- number in dispute. Only temporary construction 20' x 15' (cattle shed) exists at the spot. If that is so, we are of the view that no case is made out for release of the land. Dismissed. (G) CWP No. 8275 of 2007: In this writ petition, it is an admitted fact that against the proposed acquisition, objections were not filed under Section 5-A of the Act. In terms of the ratio of the judgment of this Court in Nishi Gupta's case (supra), this writ petition cannot be entertained. Disposed of. However, it is made clear that if any representation filed by the petitioner is pending, he may pursue the same. (H) CWP No. 8255 of 2007: Petitioner's land measuring about 21 Kanals was subject matter of acquisition. The authorities have released about 12 Kanals 4 Marlas out of the same. In view of that, no case is made out for further relief. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE July 29, 2010. DKC