IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10566 of 2011 Date of decision: 03.06.2011 Smt.Bachni Devi and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) It is apparent from the record and not disputed before us that the petitioners’ land, in dispute, is lying vacant. They have entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s Goel Buildwell Private Limited to develop that land in a colony. Their challenge is to a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 12.9.2008(P3), proposing to acquire 25 acres 7 kanal 9 marla of land, for a public purpose, namely, for construction of building – extension of police lines, Kaithal. Further challenge has been made to a declaration, issued on 5.6.2009 (P4), finally ordering acquisition of the above said land. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that after issuance of a notification under Section 6 of the Act, the respondent-authorities have released land to the extent of 123 kanal 3 marla and the same relief was not granted to the petitioners without any justification. To support the above CWP No.10566 of 2011 said contention, reference has been made to an order dated 15.9.2010 (P7). On asking of the Court, counsel for the petitioners very fairly state that the petitioners have not filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. It is further mentioned that their application, to get licence, to develop a colony as per the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 was filed on 5.7.2007, is still pending consideration. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, we feel that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioners’ land is lying vacant, whereas, the land released vide order dated 15.9.2010 (P7) was under construction, which was in existence before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Furthermore, petitioners have failed to show that the owners, in whose favour, land was released, had not filed objection under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners have failed to file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act, it would mean that they have acquiesced to the proposed acquisition. 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. In that case, it was observed as under:- “8. In connection with owners or persons interested who have not filed objections under Section 5A, in principle, it must be accepted that they had no objection to Section 4 notification operating in respect of their property. On the other hand, in respect of those who filed objections, they might have locus standi to contend that Section 5A inquiry was not conducted properly. We, therefore, agree in principle with the view of the three Judge Bench in Abhey Ram’s case that whose who have not filed objections under Section 5A, could not be allowed to 2 CWP No.10566 of 2011 contend that the Section 5A inquiry was bad and that consequently Section 6 declaration must be struck down and that then the section 4 notification would lapse. If, therefore, no objections were filed by the respondents, logically the Section 6 declaration must be deemed to be in force so far as they are concerned. 9. But learned senior counsel for the respondents contends that the judgment of the Division Bench dated 18.11.1988 in B.R. Gupta’s case had quashed the entire Section 5A proceedings and that even in case the respondents had filed objections, the position would not have been different. We cannot accept this contention. We are of the view that in respect of those who did not object to the Section 4(1) notification by filing objections under Section 5A, the said notification must be treated as being in force. The writ petitioners cannot be permitted to contend that in some other cases, the notification was quashed and that such quashing would also enure to their benefit. The petitioners have approached this Court very late. In view of facts mentioned, the writ petition stands dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 03.06.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3