CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10081 OF 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: July 12 , 2011. Parties Name Harpinder Singh and another ...PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih PRESENT: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT Petitioners are owners of land falling in Khasras No. 305, 314, 332, 334, 339, 341 and 342, total measuring 47 Kanals and 10 Marlas, situated in village Hothian, tehsil Khadoor Sahib, district TarnTaran. They have filed this writ petition to lay challenge to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (in short the Act) on July 29, 2010, proposing to acquire a vast track of land for a public purpose, namely, construction of Railway Line and for water pipe line leading to Thermal CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10081 OF 2011 -2- Power Project, Goindwal Sahib. A strip of land has been ordered to be acquired from several villages for the said purpose. Land of the petitioners under acquisition is around 19 Kanals and 10 Marlas. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on May 1, 2011. As per admitted facts on record, earlier also the petitioners came to this Court to lay challenge to the acquisition proceedings, mentioned above. Their civil writ petition bearing No. 3259 of 2011 was disposed of by this Court by passing the following order on March 23, 2011: “It was primary contention of counsel for the petitioners that before issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act, no decision was taken by the Land Acquisition Collector on the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act. On February 25, 2011, following order was passed by this Court: “On 23.2.2011, by taking note of contention raised by the petitioner that before issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), their objections were not decided, we orally asked the State counsel to produce the record. Record has been produced in Court. On perusing the same, tentatively, we are satisfied that the contention raised appears to be correct. Notice of motion. Notice regarding stay as well. On our asking Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G.Punjab CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10081 OF 2011 -3- accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply three copies of the writ petition to him during course of the day. The State counsel seeks time to get instructions. On request, adjourned to 11.3.2011.” Shri Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab informs us that in the meantime, the State authorities have withdrawn the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on January 10, 2011, and have to proceed further with the acquisition as per law, after taking decision on objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act. In view of above, we are of the opinion that these writ petitions have become infructuous and the same are disposed of accordingly. The Land Acquisition Collector and the authorities may proceed further with the acquisition, if need be, on the basis of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.” At that time, it was grievance of the petitioners that before issuing a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, no decision was taken on the objection, filed by them. In the face of that argument, the State Government, of its own, withdrew the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act and decided to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners with regard to their objection filed under Section 5-A of the Act. As per facts on record, thereafter the petitioners were given an opportunity to represent their case. They were also allowed to lead whatever evidence was available with CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10081 OF 2011 -4- them. It was objection of the petitioners that in the land proposed for acquisition, there exists a residential house, a Samadh and in rest of the land, orchard has been planted. After taking note of the revenue record and other evidence on record, that objection was rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated April 1, 2011, by observing as under: “After hearing the objectors and after the spot inspection and oral submissions of the owners of the adjacent land it seems that these objectors have conducted these exercises only to avoid the acquisition of the land in a planned conspiracy. The presence of orchard, samadh and residential house submitted by them is only to stop the land acquisition. It was seen on the spot that there is no residential house and the residential house which is shown in that there is a lock on the room and that fodder is stored. No electric meter is installed there. Only box is lying there. Earlier to this Tehsildar Khadoor Sahib vide its letter No. 145 dated 23.6.2010 submitted its report that the land which is sought to be acquired on that land there is no samadh or orchard. In the same way in the objections raised by Kuldeep Singh son of Sampuran Singh Village Biharipur, the Verandah and the plants have been planted/ grown only to stop the acquisition of the land and from the spot inspection it is found that this whole exercise has been conducted deliberately to stop the acquisition of the land. In the same way Sh. Dalbir Singh son of Gurbhail Singh village Hothian, Sh. Ranjit Singh son of Niranjan Singh Village CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10081 OF 2011 -5- Hothian, Sulakhan Singh son of Kartar Singh, Village Khadoor Sahib, Gurnam Singh son of Banta Singh Village Khadoor Sahib, Jagjit Singh son of Gurchain Singh Village Hothain, their objections with regard to the enhancement of the rate and for providing job to one member of their family and presence of orchard, samadh and residential house were duly heard after giving proper opportunity and after making spot inspection, there is no weight in their objections and since they have collected these proofs only to stop the acquisition of land by the Government, these objections are rejected. As regards the objections by these persons that their land is divided in two parts and there irrigation will be very difficult, in this regard the small bridges/ water course which can be constructed under the railway lines may be considered by the Government.” To say that there exists a residential house , a samadh and also orchard in the land under acquisition, counsel for the petitioners has placed on record a set of photographs to strengthen his case. We have perused the photographs and are one with the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Collector on April 1, 2011, rejecting objections filed by the petitioners. Construction of the Samadh is new one. So far residential house is concerned, a finding has been given by the Land Acquisition Collector that only one/ two rooms exist(s), which fact is apparent on perusal of the photographs on record. The said building cannot be termed as residential CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10081 OF 2011 -6- house of the petitioners. To show that there exists orchard in the land in dispute, reference was made to the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris for the crop Sawani 2010. Finding of the Land Acquisition Collector that some trees were planted in the land in dispute only with a view to save the land from acquisition appears to be correct. Entry regarding existence of the trees came only after June, 2010. Before that, a report was submitted by the Tehsildar on June 23, 2010, in which it was clearly stated that the land was lying vacant and there was no Samadh or orchard in existence. A look at the photographs indicate that in the land in dispute, 10 to 20 trees are in existence. Close scrutiny of the photographs clearly shows that those trees were planted after cutting the wheat crop in the year 2010. Contention of counsel for the petitioners that if land is taken in acquisition, it will harm the livelihood of the petitioners is liable to be rejected. For the land under acquisition, the petitioners will get compensation as per market value, to be proved by them and also other statutory benefits. Further contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the construction of Railway line will bifurcate their land and as such acquisition be quashed is of no substance. Railway line, in the plain area, is supposed to be in a straight line. In the present case, Railway line has been proposed in a straight line from one end to the other end. Under the circumstances, contention of the petitioners that let the Railway line be shifted on the boundary line of the petitioners' land cannot be accepted because a bend only with regard to 5 or 6 Khasra numbers cannot be recommended in a Railway line, which is running into kilometres. It is also suggested by CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10081 OF 2011 -7- counsel for the petitioners that to save land of the petitioners, let the authorities construct underground Railway line. We feel that such a proposal will not be financially viable because it will involve huge expenditure. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Augustine George Masih) Judge July 12, 2011 DKC