IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18993 of 1991 Date of decision: 31.03.2011 Sham Lal …..Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) 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 19.10.1989 and also a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 21.12.1990, proposing to acquire 50 kanal 9 marla of land in revenue estate of Pehowa, district Kurukshetra for a public purpose, namely, for landscaping roads, footpaths, parks, widening of Tirath and various other developmental activities by the Kurukshetra Development Board at Pehowa. In this writ petition, it is contended by the petitioner that on the land falling in khasra No.72//33 (0-10), 34/1 (0-9), which he has taken from Brahman Panchayat Sabha, a temple and ashram is in existence which were constructed in the year 1965-66. It is further stated that despite objections raised, the said land has been ordered to be acquired. Civil Writ Petition No.18993 of 1991 In response to notice issued, reply has been filed. Paragraph no.11 of the written statement filed by respondent No.1 reads thus:- “11. In reply to para 11 of the petition it is submitted that the Government in the Local Government Deptt. has not taken any policy decision to allot commercial or residential plots in lieu of the land acquired by it. As stated in the preceding paragraphs the constructed portion of land under the temple and ashram belonging to the petitioner has already been released from the land acquisition proceedings. The Kurukshetra Development Board on whose behalf the land has been acquired had already stated before the Land Acquisition Collector that no permanent structure would be constructed in front of the temple so that its approach with the Sarover may not be disturbed. In other words there will be no obstacle to go in and come out from the Mandir with the acquisition of land in front of Mandir. On the other side, the acquisition of land in front of temple will facilitate the widening of the Parikarma and will benefit the lakhs of pilgrims who assemble on the occasion of various religious melas for holy dip.” In the written statement, it is clearly mentioned that the land under construction, occupied by the temple and an ashram has been ordered to be released from acquisition whereas area which was vacant and is situated in front of the mandir has been ordered to be acquired because that area falls within the alignment of Parikarma around the Barham Sarovar, which is to be widened. To show that the land falls within that alignment, copy of the site plan has been brought on record as Annexure R1. After looking at the documents on record, we are satisfied that the sufficient relief 2 Civil Writ Petition No.18993 of 1991 had already been granted to the petitioner by leaving out constructed portion of the mandir and ashram, the rest of the land is needed to widen the Parikarama of Brahm Sarovar where devotees in lacs paid their respect every month. The entire process of acquisition was started to beautify the religious place and also to facilitate smooth visit of the devotees to the sacred place. Furthermore, the petitioner is also not the owner of the land in dispute. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 31.03.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3