CWP No. 14798 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 14798 of 2007 Date of Decision: 06.08.2009 Maninder Singh ....petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D. Anand Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the State. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). The land of the petitioner, situated in the revenue estate of village Kawla, was sought to be acquired by the respondents. In the first instance, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) was issued on 30.7.2006. Dissatisfied with the tentative determination of the respondents to acquire his land, the petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, on 27.8.2006. Despite the objections filed by the petitioner, the State government finalised its determination to acquire the land of the petitioner situated in the revenue estate of village Kawla, by issuing a declaration/ notification on 19.7.2007, under section 6 of the 1894 Act. CWP No. 14798 of 2007 2 Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents in acquiring his land. The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the sole basis for not exempting the petitioner’s land from acquisition proceedings was, that the petitioner had constructed a poultry farm unauthorisedly over his land. On account of the said unauthorised construction, the respondents had declined to accept the claim of the petitioner for exemption of his land from acquisition proceedings. Insofar as, the instant issue is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to a motion Bench order dated 17.7.2008 (passed during the course of hearing of the instant writ petition) wherein the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a statement in the form of an undertaking to this Court, that the petitioner was ready and willing to remove the poultry farm from the land, in case the respondents were willing to release the land of the petitioner from acquisition proceedings. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the non-acceptance of the undertaking given to this Court to remove the poultry farm, must be deemed to be wholly arbitrary and unacceptable in law. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the action of the respondents to acquire his land be set aside, and accordingly, the action of the respondents in acquiring the petitioner’s land be set aside. We have considered the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are of the view, that the petitioner has not assessed the objection raised on behalf of the respondents, in its correct perspective. Ordinarily, where there is construction over the land sought to be acquired, the respondents favourably consider the same for CWP No. 14798 of 2007 3 release from acquisition proceedings. Such construction flows from the various instructions issued by the respondents. Even in the instant acquisition proceedings, land which was originally sought to be acquired, other than the land of the petitioner, came to be released on account of existing construction thereon. The action of the respondents in not extending the same benefit to the petitioner, was on account of the fact, that the construction raised by the petitioner was unauthorized. It is not, as if, the land of the petitioner was acquired merely because he has raised unauthorised construction thereon. The instant plea that the petitioner had raised unauthorised construction on the land, has been advanced by the respondents, to repudiate the claim of the petitioner for release of land from acquisition, only to demonstrate that the petitioner was not entitled to the same benefit, which was available to others who had effected construction on their land. In view of the above, it is not possible for us to accept the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was based on averments made in paragraph 3 (of an affidavit dated 25.3.2009) filed on behalf of the petitioner. Paragraph 3 of the aforesaid affidavit is being extracted hereunder: - “That it may not be out of place to state here that the land adjoining the deponent in Khasra No.7//21,21,7//21,7//17 also stands excluded on the ground that the same is the part of the thickly built up area. However, still the land of the deponent has been ordered to be acquired.” It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that land adjoining the land of the petitioner, was ordered to be released from CWP No. 14798 of 2007 4 acquisition proceedings, whereas the land of the petitioner, which was similarly situated as the adjoining land, was not extended the same benefit. In order to support his instant contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in BEML House Building Cooperative Society Ltd Vs. State of Karnataka (2005)9 SCC 248. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while basing his claim on the aforesaid judgement, invited our attention to the facts depicted in paragraphs 2 and 5, and thereupon, the conclusion drawn in paragraph 7. We have considered the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Yet again, we find no merit therein. Our reason to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion has partly been answered while adjudicating upon the first issue canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. It is apparent from the factual position relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the affidavit, extracted hereinabove, that the adjoining land which had thickly built-up area, was ordered to be released. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid area released from acquisition proceedings, was being used for human habitation. This is also one of the purposes for which the notifications acquiring the land were issued. That is not so, insofar as, the petitioner’s land is concerned. In fact, it is the emphatic case at the behest of the respondents, that over the land belonging to the petitioner, it was intended to construct houses for economically weaker sections of the society. In other words, land owned by the petitioner was to be used for human habitation. Undoubtedly, a poultry farm erected by the petitioner on his land has to take a place inferior to the one which was postulated in the notifications seeking to acquire the petitioner’s land. Additionally, as noticed hereinabove, the construction effected by the petitioner on his land CWP No. 14798 of 2007 5 was unauthorized. In view of the above, it is not possible for us to accept the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No other submission was advanced on behalf of the petitioner. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( S.D. Anand ) Judge 06.08.2009 sk.