IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CMs No. 87 & 88 of 2011 and LPA No. 26 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 07.03.2011 Chander Kanta Talwar and others .... APPELLANTS Versus State of Haryana and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Advocate, for the appellants. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 8.12.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 7164 of 1990) filed by appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2, for quashing the notifications dated 30.1.1989 (Annexure P- 5) and 25.1.1990 (Annexure P-6), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), respectively, was dismissed. The review application, filed by the appellant seeking review of the order dated 8.12.2008, has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.9.2010. Though this appeal is barred by limitation and the appellants have filed an application (CM No. 87 of 2011), duly supported by an CMs No. 87 & 88 of 2011 and LPA No. 26 of 2011 ( O&M ) -2- affidavit, for condoning the delay of 36 days in re-filing the appeal, and another application (CM No. 88 of 2011), duly supported by an affidavit, for condoning the delay of 654 days in filing the appeal, but we have heard learned counsel for the appellants on merits. Undisputedly, the appellants did not file the objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Primarily, they challenged the aforesaid acquisition on the ground of discrimination. It has been alleged that the lands of various persons have been exempted from acquisition and the exemption is to such an extent that no useful purpose will be served by acquiring the remaining land. Undisputedly, certain land, on which there exists construction, has been exempted from acquisition. So far as two plots of the appellants, each measuring 450 square yards, are concerned, it is an admitted fact that there was no construction over the same at the time of the issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. This fact was also reported by the revenue authorities, when they conducted the survey immediately before acquisition of the land under Section 4 of the Act. However, after the acquisition process was over, the appellants appear to have raised some construction, on the basis of which they claim that the acquisition qua their land be quashed. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the decision this Court in CWP No. 3059 of 1990, Ashok Chopra versus State of Haryana and others (decided on 23.12.2006), passed by the learned CMs No. 87 & 88 of 2011 and LPA No. 26 of 2011 ( O&M ) -3- Single Judge, which was upheld by the Division Bench in LPA No. 179 of 2008, decided on 24.9.2008. Copies of both these orders have been placed on record by the appellants by filing CM No. 1105 of 2011. A perusal of these judgments reveals that though the said case was pertaining to the same acquisition, but there was construction over an area of 7000 square feet and while taking into consideration the same, the said writ petition was allowed and the notification under Section 6 of the Act was quashed. The said case is entirely different from the present one. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the instant case, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition, filed by appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2, as there was no discrimination in their case. We do not find any illegality in the order, passed by the learned Single Judge. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 07, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) sjks/ndj JUDGE