IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.764 of 2011 Date of decision: 19.1.2011 Harsh Kumar and others …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.S.K.Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.726 and 764 of 2011, involving common questions of law and fact. For facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from CWP No.764 of 2011. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 29.4.2010, proposing to acquire 84.75 acres of land for a public purpose, namely, for construction of 3rd Water Works near Ottu Feeder on NH-10 to supply water to Sirsa city. Further challenge has been made to a declaration issued on 9.11.2010, declaring an intention of the respondents to acquire the above said property. Out of the land which is the subject matter of acquisition under challenge, petitioner No.1 is owner of 16 kanal 8 marla of land falling in Civil Writ Petition No.764 of 2011 Khasra Nos.115//12/2(0-10), 13(8-0), 14/1(7-18), petitioner No.2 is owner of 104 kanal 2 marla of land falling in Khasra No.115//17(8-0), 18(8-0), 23 (7-11), 24(7-11), 126//2 to 4(24-0), 7(6-2), 8 and 9 (16-0), 12(8-0), 13(7- 10), 19/1(8-2), 19/2(0-16), 22(2-10) and petitioner No.3 is owner of 86 kanal 12 marla of land flaling in Khasra No.115/11(8-0), 12/1(7-10), 14/2 (0-2), 19-20(16-0), 21(7-11), 22(7-11), 126//1(8-0), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 20(8- 0), 21(7-18). When this matter came up for hearing on 17.1.2011, it was vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioners that land falling in khasra No.115//11, 12/1, 12/2, 13, 14/1, 14/2, 15/1, 15/2, 16 and 17 was not the subject matter of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, the same was shown to have been acquired when declaration under Section 6 was issued by the respondents. To verify the above said fact, we orally asked the State counsel to produce before us a copy of the original notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act on 29.4.2010. A copy of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in English and also in Hindi has been produced before us. Perusal thereof indicates that all these khasra numbers were part of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Not only as above, perusal of objections filed by the petitioners clearly indicates that they were aware that the land falling in the above said khasra numbers was going to be acquired and notification has been issued under Section 4 of the Act. In para no.1 of the objections filed total area of land owned by each of the petitioners is clearly mentioned. We feel that the above said objection was raised on account of wrong supply of copy of the notification to the petitioners, where one page is missing. It is further contention of counsel for the petitioners that there is no entry of those khasra numbers in 2 Civil Writ Petition No.764 of 2011 the Roznamcha Waqaiti of the village wherein entry was made regarding publication of the notification, mentioned above. Be that as it may, the Patwari while making an entry may have committed mistake in not putting in some of the khasra numbers, however it is apparent from the records that the notification issued under Section 4 was published in the village and its substance was entered in the Roznamcha maintained by the Patwari. If that is so, there is no violation of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act so far as publication is concerned. Further contention of counsel for the petitioners is that, in the near future, the land under acquisition, cannot be used for the purpose for which it was acquired as the construction of 2nd phase of the water works is not complete. We are not convinced with the argument raised. The authorities have acquired the land to set up 3rd unit of Water Works. We are hopeful that it will be used for the said purpose in near future. There is nothing to say to the contrary. Besides as above, no other point was raised. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 19.01.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3