IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8211 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.3.2009 Surender Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (oral) 1. This petition seeks quashing of notification dated 7.5.2007 under Section 4 and notification dated 9.1.2008 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he purchased the land in dispute in the year 2006 and applied for grant of 'Change of Land Use' on 9.8.2006. On account of indecision, the proposal is deemed to have been accepted. Thereafter the acquisition proceedings were initiated to which the petitioner filed objections. However, final notification was issued acquiring the land. Acquisition has been challenged on the ground that no survey was conducted in accordance with the instructions applicable to the State of Haryana, Annexure P-3 dated 14/21.11.1980 The area was in agricultural zone and could not be acquired for extension of tourism complex which was a commercial activity. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, it has been, inter-alia, stated that the objection of the petitioner was considered and survey was duly conducted. Acquisition was for extension of tourist facilities around the pre-existing tourist complex. It has also been stated that No Objection Certificate has been obtained from the office of the Director, Town and Country Planning Department for the purpose of acquisition. 4. In the replication, the petitioner has referred to recommendation dated 21.9.2007 to the effect that before taking any further steps to acquire the land, objections of the petitioner and the copies of documents like Master Plan and instructions dated 21.11.1980 may be looked into. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not disputed that vide order dated 28.1.2009 CWP No. 9276 of 2008 (Richhpal Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others), challenging acquisition of adjacent land for the same purpose was dismissed. It is, however, submitted that the present case is distinguishable as there is culvert between the original complex and land of the petitioner and thus, there is no contiguity. 7. We do not find this distinction of much relevance. Mere existence of small culvert does not mean there is no contiguity. 8. According to the stand of the State, report of the Land Acquisition Collector was duly considered before taking final decision for acquisition. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice directions in a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board v. C. Kenchappa and others, (2006) 6 SCC 371 to the following effect:- “100. The importance and awareness of environment and ecology is becoming so vital and important that we, in our judgment, want the appellant to insist on the conditions emanating from the principle of “Sustainable Development”: (1) We direct that, in future, before acquisition of lands for development, the consequence and adverse impact of development on environment must be properly comprehended and the lands be acquired for development that they do not gravely impair the ecology and environment. (2) We also direct the appellant to incorporate the condition of allotment to obtain clearance from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board before the land is allotted for development. The said directory condition of allotment of lands be converted into a mandatory condition for all the projects to be sanctioned in future.” 10. In view of the above, while upholding acquisition we direct the respondents to keep the impact of use of land on environment in mind. 11. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 23.3.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE