IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.242 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.7.2009 Suresh Garg. -----Appellant Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl.A.G., Haryana Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for respondent No.3-HUDA Mr. G.S. Punia, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 7. ----- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of his writ petition, against proceedings for acquisition in pursuance of notifications dated 1.10.1973 under Section 4 and 1.10.1976 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). LPA No.242 of 2007 2. The acquisition was for planned development. The writ petition was filed in the year 1987. No objection was filed by the appellant under Section 5A of the Act. Award was duly made and compensation given to the owners. The appellant claimed to be the lessee from one of the heirs of the deceased owner, after notification under Section 4 of the Act. Initially, award was made on 27.2.1974 which was set aside by this Court with a direction to give fresh award, which was announced on 21.9.1978. The appellant also relies on sale deed dated 21.2.1995 executed in his favour, after filing of the petition. 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner/appellant having not filed any objection under Section 5A of the Act and his claim having come into existence after notification under Section 4 of the Act, no interference was called for with the acquisition. 4. Notice was issued in the appeal to consider the question whether acquisition of running factory was permissible. Respondents opposed the appeal by supporting the findings of the learned Single Judge. Therein, observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for exempting the running factories were distinguished on the ground that the appellant came into picture after initiation of acquisition proceedings and had not filed any objection under Section 5A of the Act. 5. This being undisputed that the appellant did not file any objection, under Section 5A of the Act and came into picture 2 LPA No.242 of 2007 much after initiation of acquisition proceedings and writ petition was filed more than ten years after notification under Section 6, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 21, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) ashwani JUDGE 3