Civil Writ Petition No.3101 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3101 of 1990 Date of Decision:16.03.2011 Gram Panchayat, Salokhra ....petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUAMR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Anil Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Addl.Advocate General, Haryana *** JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL): This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification dated 30th January, 1989(P-2) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(in short 'the Act') proposing to acquire 210.28 acres of land in village Salokhra for a public purpose namely 'for the development and utilization of land for residential/commercial area(Sector- 30, Gurgaon). Further challenge has been made to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 25th January, 1990, finally ordering acquisition of 169.00 acres of land in the above said village. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is a Gram Panchayat. It is an admitted fact that Civil Writ Petition No.3101 of 1990 2 when the land owned by the petitioner was put to acquisition it was lying vacant. It is case of the petitioner that land owned by the adjoining landowners have been left out from acquisition and not providing same relief to the petitioner, discrimination has been done to it. To claim relief, reliance has been placed on a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3494 of 1990 titled as Satish Kumar vs.State of Haryana & anr.decided on 11th January, 2010, wherein relief was granted to the petitioner therein by ordering release of his constructed building. In the present case, situation is altogether different. Petitioner is a Gram Panchayat and the land was lying vacant. Furthermore, land has been ordered to be released in favour of some builders, which, as per information supplied, is the subject matter of an another writ petition, in which release of land was quashed. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 16.03.2011 neenu