IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.15256 of 2010 and Civil Writ Petition No.17133 of 2010 Date of decision: 8.11.2010 Gadhu Ram 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.Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM No.15256 of 2010 This application has been moved with a prayer to recall order dated 30.9.2010, dismissing CWP No.17133 of 2010 for non-prosecution. Application is accompanied by an affidavit of clerk to the counsel of the petitioners. In this application, it is stated that non-appearance on the date fixed was not intentional. In view of facts mentioned in this application, we allow the same, recall order dated 30.9.2010 and restore CWP No.17133 of 2010 to its original number. On request made, writ petition is taken up for hearing today. Civil Writ Petition No.17133 of 2010 The petitioners are father and son. It is their case that despite objections raised and policy in existence, their residential house has not been kept out of acquisition. Civil Writ Petition No.17133 of 2010 At the time of arguments, on perusal of documents, it came to our notice that when notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) was issued, 10 biswas of land of the petitioners was kept out of acquisition. This fact does not find mention in this writ petition. Furthermore, by placing reliance upon ration cards and photographs, an attempt has been made to show us that petitioner No.1 who is father and petitioner No.2 who is son, are living separately in two separate blocks/buildings adjoining each other. We are not convinced with the arguments raised. Electric meter is one and furthermore taking note of the situation of the area, we are convinced that the entire construction falls in one house. Otherwise also, there is no averment in the writ petition that the constructed portion do not fall in the land released from acquisition. It is also an admitted fact that objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed only by petitioner No.1. There is nothing on record to show that any objection was filed by petitioner No.2 under Section 5-A of the Act. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 08.11.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2