IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2054 of 2011 Date of decision: 16.02.2011 Nepal …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification dated 7.2.2008 (P5), proposing to acquire a vast tract of land, including a small piece of land owned by the petitioner (540 square yard). Further challenge is to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act on 6.2.2009 (P6). By making reference to the photographs (P1) and Voter Identity Cards (P3 and P4), an attempt has been made to show that before issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 7.2.2008, the petitioner had constructed his residential house in the land, in dispute. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the Policy of the State Government dated 26.10.2007, constructed residential house cannot be made subject matter of acquisition. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Civil Writ Petition No.2054 of 2011 After looking into facts of this case, especially, the photographs which clearly indicate that the construction is new one and is very small, we are not inclined to accept contention raised by the petitioner. Photographs do not suggest that it is a residential house of the petitioner. Construction appears to have been raised after issuance of notification, mentioned above. To say that the petitioner is residing in this house, reliance has been placed upon Voter Identity Cards (P3 and P4), reading whereof indicates that the house, in which the petitioner was living, constitutes house No.94, village Faridpur, Block-2, tehsil and district Faridabad, whereas this land is situated away from the village. These Voter Identity Cards cannot be connected with the construction, in dispute, as shown in photographs (P1). Furthermore, when opportunity was given, the petitioner failed to file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. If that is so, in terms of ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, AIR 1999 SC 3822, this writ petition is not maintainable. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 16.02.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 2