In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 4430 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 10, 2009 Rohtash and others. … 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. Ram Kumar Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for respondent No.4. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners numbering 11 in all have impugned the action of the respondents in acquiring their land by issuing notifications dated 03.08.2006 and 14.06.2007 (Annexures P/2 and P/4 respectively) under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is based on the mandate of Section 5A of the Act, wherein it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the action of the respondents in issuing a declaration under Section 6 of the Act CWP No. 4430 of 2008 dated 14.06.2007 should be set aside on account of the fact that an opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioners in terms of the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 5A of the Act. The aforesaid contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been strongly contested at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondents by contending, that the question of considering the objections filed by the petitioners would arise only if the petitioners had actually filed any objection under Section 5A of the Act. On the instant issue, reference may be made to the pleadings in paragraph no. 8 (of the reply on merits submitted on behalf of respondent no.3). Paragraph no.8 is being extracted hereunder:- “8. That para No.8 of the writ petition is wrong and hence denied. It is submitted that as per report sent by the then Land Acquisition Collector, there were only 19 numbers objections but the objection of the petitioners has been entered in the objection register after other 19 objections giving number 883/1 dated 31.8.2006. It seems that this objection has been received after limitation and has been entered in the objection register by the then dealing contract basis patwari whose services had been terminated. It is further submitted that if the said objection was received within limitation, the report on said objection along with other 19 objections would have been sent by then Land Acquisition Collector.” No replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to the averments made in paragraph no.8 extracted hereinabove. We are, therefore, satisfied, that it would be just and appropriate to conclude, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the petitioners did not file any objection under Section 5A of the Act. As such, there can hardly be any justification in the contention of the petitioners, in as much as, an opportunity of hearing could have been claimed only after filing objections. Since no objections were filed, there is no question of an opportunity of hearing. 2 CWP No. 4430 of 2008 The second contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is for release of their land from the process of acquisition. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that 4 kanals of land was allotted to the petitioners during the process of conciliation. The aforesaid land is a subject matter of acquisition through the impugned notifications. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, based on the pleadings recorded in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, that the land allotted to the petitioner was outside the land “lal dora”. However, the Gram Panchayat of Village Kassar had passed a resolution dated 29.05.2006, whereby, the Gram Panchayat had sought the extension of the “abadi deh” of Village Kassar under Section 22 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1963). Section 22 of the Act of 1963 is being extracted hereunder:- “22. Exemption – Nothing in this Act shall apply to – a) The area comprised in Abadi Deh of any village; b) The area adjacent to the abadi deh of any village which the Govt. identifies for village expansion through a notification published in the official gazette, specially to this effect subject to the conditions that this area shall not exceed sixty percent of the existing village abadi deh.” Based on the aforesaid resolution of the Gram Panchayat, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the acquisition process initiated by the respondents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should not have been carried on, till a final decision had been taken by the respondents, in furtherance of the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Kassar dated 29.05.2006. 3 CWP No. 4430 of 2008 We have considered the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. We are satisfied, that the instant submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves to be rejected for two reasons. Firstly, no vested right can be deemed to have emerged from the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Kassar dated 29.05.2006. Section 22 of the Act of 1963 is an enabling provision, whereby, “abadi deh” of any village can be extended subject to the condition of a maximum of sixty per cent of the existing village “abadi deh”. As such, merely because a resolution had been forwarded by the Gram Panchayat of village Kassar to the State Government, would not necessarily entail, that the State Government would pass an order extending the “abadi deh”. Secondly, it is a misnomer for the petitioners who assert that the process of acquisition carried out by the respondents under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will have to be stalled till the exercise of discretion under Section 22 of the Act of 1963. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is a central enactment, whereas, the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 is a state legislation. A central legislation has overriding effect. It may, therefore, not be proper, in terms of law, to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the process ought to have been stalled till an effective determination at the hands of the State Government under the provisions of the Act of 1963. Accordingly, we find no merit even in the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. This leads us to the solitary remaining contention, namely, the entitlement of the petitioners for allotment of a plot consequent upon the acquisition of their land. We are satisfied that the instant issue should be 4 CWP No. 4430 of 2008 examined by the State Government in the first instance. Insofar as the instant contention is concerned, we have already passed an order on the issue in Nirmala Devi vs. State of Haryana and others (Civil Writ Petition No. 1846 of 2008, decided on 10.09.2009). The aforesaid order shall apply to the petitioners as well. The instant writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge September 10, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 5