IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 4613 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: November 17, 2008 Satpriya Mehmia Memorial Educational Trust …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. None for respondent No. 7 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notification dated 24.8.2007 (20.8.2007?) (Annexure P-6) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 24.12.2007 (P-8) issued under Section 6 of the Act. A further prayer has been made for C.W.P. No. 4613 of 2008 directing the respondents to release the land of the petitioner-Trust from acquisition. It is claimed that the petitioner-Trust is running various educational institutes including Delhi Public School, Rohtak, Sat Priya Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sat Priya Institute of Management and Research and Sat Priya College of Education etc., and purchased 11 acres of land on Delhi-Rohtak National Highway on 6.4.2005. On 17.1.2007, the petitioner-Trust applied for change of land use and deposited fees of Rs. 4,47,000/-, which was rejected vide order dated 14.6.2007 (P-4). Against the aforesaid rejection order the petitioner Trust preferred an appeal, which is stated to be pending before the Appellate Authority. On 8.9.2006, the respondent State notified a Draft Development Plan 2025 AD for Rohtak (P-15). On 20.8.2007, the respondent State issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act (P-6) intending to acquire land to be used for public and semi-public purposes as per the provisions of Draft Development Plan of Rohtak. The petitioner-Trust filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 17.9.2007. On 18.9.2007, another notification was issued by the respondent State revising the earlier Draft Development Plan of Rohtak (P-17) against which the petitioner-Trust filed its objections. On 24.12.2007, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued acquiring the land including the land belonging to the petitioner- Trust. It has been claimed that the petitioner-Trust has applied for supply of details with regard to acquisition under the Right of Information Act, 2005, however, complete details have not been 2 C.W.P. No. 4613 of 2008 supplied. Thus, the principal ground of challenge in the instant petition is that without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act, the respondent authorities have acquired the land in dispute. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the stand taken is that the land belonging to the petitioner-Trust falls under the alignment of green belt. There was no construction at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the area was lying vacant. It has further been pointed out that proper procedure for acquisition of land has been followed, inasmuch as, after filing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act, opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the representative of the petitioner- Trust, which was duly availed. After considering the objections filed by the petitioner-Trust and other land owners, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and wide publicity of the same was made in the area by beat of drums as well as publication was made on 20.2.2008 in daily news paper ‘Hari Bhumi’. It has, thus, been claimed that land in dispute has been acquired after following all procedures. The respondents have also highlighted that the notifications, subject matter of challenge in the instant petition, have already been upheld by this Court in C.W.P. No. 4607 of 2008 (Lalit Kumar Jain and others v. State of Haryana and others), decided on 10.4.2008. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance we find that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is conceded position that the area was lying vacant at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The 3 C.W.P. No. 4613 of 2008 respondents have also afforded opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner-Trust in response to the objections filed by it. The assertion made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 remains un-rebutted, inasmuch as, no counter or replication to the same has been filed by the petitioner-Trust. Moreover, the impugned notification dated 20.8.2007 (P-6) and declaration dated 24.12.2007 (P-8), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively also came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 4607 of 2008 (supra), of which one of us (M.M. Kumar, J.) was a member, and the same have been upheld. In the aforementioned case, the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate Department, Haryana, Rohtak, has filed an affidavit dated 26.3.2008, categorically stating that the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act were heard and a report with recommendation was submitted to the Government alongwith survey report. The land belonging to the petitioners of that case also falls in the alignment of road and green belt. Therefore, we are fully satisfied that no illegality has been committed by the respondents while acquiring the land in dispute. In view of above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) November 17, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4