IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6128 of 1992 Date of decision: 18.1.2011 Suresh Kumar 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.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of five writ petitions bearing Nos.2424, 6127, 6128, 6130 and 7026 of 1992, involving similar questions of law and fact. For facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from CWP No.6128 of 1992. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash notifications, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 22.3.1990 and 19.3.1991, respectively, proposing to acquire 197.22 acres land, including small plots of land owned by the petitioners. It is case of the petitioners that the petitioners have purchased those plots in a colony carved out in the out skirts of Gurgaon near village Islampur. After purchasing of land, the petitioners have raised construction Civil Writ Petition No.6128 of 1992 in their plots. To say so, document Annexure P1 was put on record, showing the date of construction. Besides as above, there is no evidence on record that any building was constructed before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 22.3.1990. It is grievance of the petitioners that despite existing of Policy to the contrary, the built up house of the petitioners has been ordered to be acquired, whereas relief was given to many other land owners by exempting their buildings from acquisition. To say so, reference has been made to the release of land falling in khasra Nos.443, 455, 458, 460, 461 and 469. Prayer is to quash the above said notifications qua the land owned by the petitioners. In reply filed by respondent No.2, it is stated that at the relevant time, when opportunity was given, the petitioners have failed to file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. It is argued that by the State counsel that on account of that, in view of ratio of the 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. Furthermore, it is specifically stated that there was no construction in the land owned by the petitioners when notifications under Section 4 of the Act was issued. Paragraph No.3 of the written statement reads thus:- “3. That in para No.2 of the Civil Writ Petition, all the petitioners have claimed construction over the land in dispute. The claim of the petitioners is false and has been made with malafide intentions. Fact is that after the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued, a survey was conducted by the answering respondent in accordance with law. The land in dispute was completely vacant and there was no construction at the relevant time. The relevant record shall be 2 Civil Writ Petition No.6128 of 1992 produced before the Hon’ble Court as and when the same is ordered. The Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.” Regarding release of land, as alleged by the petitioners, response was given in paragraph No.12 of the written statement, which reads thus:- “12. That in reply to para No.12 of the Civil Writ Petition, it is submitted that the allegations made by petitioners in the para under reply are false and concocted and have been made with malafide intentions. No part of the land bearing khasra No.469, village Islampur has been left out of acquisition at all. The said khasra number is completely under acquisition. As far as khasra numbers 443, 455, 458, 460 and 461 village Islampur are concerned, construction over the same was left out of acquisition which was in existence at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was of A and B class. Only vacant part of the said khasra numbers is under acquisition. As far as the petitioners are concerned there was no construction over the land in dispute. The same is being acquired fully in accordance with law. There has been no discrimination at all.” It is specifically stated that no part of land, falling in khasra No.469 was released from acquisition. It is further stated that so far as khasra Nos.443, 455, 458, 460 and 461 are concerned, these were left out of acquisition because of existing construction at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, whereas land owned by the petitioners, at the relevant time, was lying vacant. 3 Civil Writ Petition No.6128 of 1992 After hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that no case is made out to interfere at the instance of the petitioners. By filing reply, it is specifically stated by the respondents that land was lying vacant when notifications under Section 4 of the Act was issued to acquire the same. To the averments made in the written statement, no replication was filed. Otherwise also, except document Annexure P1, in which, only year of construction has been mentioned, there is no other evidence on record in the shape of photographs or copies of the bills, against which material was purchased for construction, to support contention raised by the petitioners. Be that as it may, the petitioners have failed to file objections at the relevant time under Section 5-A of the Act. Possibly this writ petition cannot be entertained at their instance in view of ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurdip Singh Uban (supra). In the said case, it was opined 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 those who have not filed objections under Section 5A, could not be allowed to contend that the Section 5A inquiry was bad and that consequently Section 6 declaration must be struck down and that then the section 4 4 Civil Writ Petition No.6128 of 1992 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.” Similar contentions were raised by the land owners in CWP No.7657 of 1991, titled as Surat Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another. Refuting the same, the writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 3.12.1991 (R1). No other point was argued. No case is made out for interference. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 18.01.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 5