CWP No. 6572 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6572 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.08.2010 Asha Rani wife of Mohan Lal Verma and another ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate, and Mr. A.S.Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to a notification dated 24.12.2007 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') proposing to acquire land measuring 138.25 Acres for the purpose of developing a residential, transport and communication zone in Sector 18, Rohtak. Further challenge has been laid to a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 23.12.2008. In this writ petition, it is grievance of the petitioners that when declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued, a vast track of land CWP No. 6572 of 2010 2 measuring about 41 Acres was released from acquisition on a ground that there existed construction over that land, however, the said relief was not granted to the petitioners for the reasons best known to the respondents. Upon notice, reply has been filed. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 3, reason for not releasing house of the petitioners has been stated as under:- “ That the land owners were given an opportunity to file objections u/s-5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the petitioner filed the objections u/s-5A regarding her construction i.e. five rooms with boundary wall. The land owners who filed the objection were given due opportunity of being heard on 12.5.2008. Govt. after considering the objection u/s-5A and report of land acquisition collector, decided to acquire the vacant land and closed house of the petitioner. It is relevant to mention here that total land measuring 41 acre has been released from the acquisition because of constructed area after hearing the objections of land owners u/s-5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.” It is not in dispute that as per the Policy of the State Government, if constructed building of a right holder do not fall within the road alignment and is not earmarked for any public utility service, the same shall be left out of the acquisition. In the present case, it is not in dispute that initially under Section 4 of the Act, area proposed to be acquired was 138.25 Acres, however, declaration was issued only with regard to 97.25 Acres. Counsel for the State has admitted before us that a vast track of land was left out of acquisition because of existence of house thereon. If CWP No. 6572 of 2010 3 that is so, it is very surprising that why the same relief was not granted to the petitioners. It is an admitted fact that after issuance of the notice under Section 4 of the Act, the petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act stating therein that they are the owners of only 235 Sq. Yards, over which they had constructed five rooms, bathrooms and boundary wall etc. and they are residing therein. They had also put in appearance before the Land Acquisition Collector, when objections were taken up for adjudication. It is very surprising that despite objections raised, constructed house of the petitioners was ordered to be acquired. It is necessary to note here that the land was acquired for the purpose of development of residential and transport etc. purposes. The petitioners are already residing in their house. As per admitted case of the parties, due to construction over the land under acquisition, more than 41 Acres of land was released from acquisition. The site plan indicates that the house of the petitioners is situated on the road and in view of that probably, if released from acquisition, it will not affect the over-all planning of the area concerned. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and qua the petitioners' land, notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act dated 24.12.2007 and 23.12.2008 respectively, stand quashed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ` ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE August 10 2010 pj CWP No. 6572 of 2010 4