IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 18711 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 10, 2009 Shree Baba Wazir Nath Annakshetra and Gaushala Samiti. …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. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No. 1, 2 & 5. Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No. 3 and 4. Mr. Amarjeet Markan, Advocate, for the applicant. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner i.e. Shree Baba Wazir Nath Annakshetra and Gaushala Samiti, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind, has impugned the action of the respondents in acquiring the land over which the petitioner has allegedly constructed a Gaushala by issuing notifications dated 06.10.2006 and dated 10.07.2007 (Annexures P/7 and P/9 respectively), under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the preliminary submissions contained in the joint written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the legitimacy in filing the instant writ petition is sought to be assailed on two counts. Firstly, that the petitioner is not owner of the acquired land over which the alleged Gaushala CWP No. 18711 of 2008 has been constructed, and secondly, that neither the petitioner nor the land owners, of the land under reference, had filed objections under Section 5A of the Act, and as such, are not entitled in law to assail the action of the respondents in acquiring the land. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledged, that there was no material on the record of the pleadings of the instant writ petition, on the basis whereof, the petitioner could establish its title over the acquired land. It is, therefore, natural to infer, that the petitioner has not been able to establish its ownership over the acquired land. If the petitioner has not established ownership of the acquired land, and has not been able to establish valid possession thereof, it had no occasion to file any objections under Section 5A of the Act consequent upon the issuance of the notification dated 06.10.2006, under Section 4 of the Act. Even if the petitioner was an interested person in terms of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act, it was open to the petitioner to have filed objections consequent upon the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioner admittedly did not file any such objections. In view of the above for both the reasons recorded in the preliminary submissions contained in the joint written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, we are satisfied, that the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge August 10, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2