IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 634 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 16, 2008 Chameli Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is for quashing notifications dated 9.9.2002 (P-4) and 8.9.2003 (P-6), issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The petitioner has also prayed for quashing award dated 6.9.2005 (P-8). It has been claimed that the petitioner has Pucca structure in the land owned by her. A perusal of the revenue record-jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 (P-1) shows that a small portion of the land has been described as Gairmumkin whereas the total land belonging to the petitioner, which has been acquired is 41 Kanals 14 Marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 1196/1115, Khatoni No. 1564, Killa No. 107//14/2, 15, 16, 17/1, C.W.P. No. 634 of 2008 108//1/2, 20, 26, 458/5. A further perusal of the site plan (P-3) shows that the acquired land belonging to the petitioner is situated in the middle of the acquired land. In such a situation, it may not be possible for the respondents to adjust the structure and the acquisition has been made alongwith the structure. It is further clear that the petitioner has been awarded compensation in respect of structure also. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that no plausible reason is available for this Court to interfere in the discretion exercised by the respondents. Even otherwise, we are of the view that no prejudice is likely to cause to the petitioner as she will be entitled to compensation for the structure as well. The discretion which could be exercised under Section 48 of the Act has to be based on some objective criteria and in the present case the land is situated in the middle of the acquired land and the planning is likely to be adversely affected in case the discretion under Section 48 of the Act is exercised. As a sequel to the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 16, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 2