IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11089 of 2011 Date of Decision:- 18.07.2011 Jai Pal and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Add.A.G., Haryana. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (Oral) Petitioners are the owners of 5 kanals and 16 marlas of land situated in village Mauja Faijjupur Majra Neemka, District Faridabad. It is case of the petitioners that on a portion of the land, they had constructed their residential house and a cattle shed in the year 1985 and they are residing there. It is further stated that they do not own any other house in the village or anywhere else except the house mentioned above. It is further stated by them that it is 'A-class' construction. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to a notification dated 7.2.2008 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') proposing to acquire a vast track of land including the land owned by the petitioners. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act issued on 6.2.2009. To show existence of construction of a house, reference was made to a photograph on record (Annexure P-3). Perusal thereof indicates that the construction is old one and is meant for residential as well as for the C.W.P.No.11089 of 2011 -2- tethering of the animals. When notice of motion was issued on 10.6.2011, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed: “Counsel for the petitioners states that though the petitioners are owners in possession of 5 kanals and 16 marlas of land, yet they have raised a residential house and a cattle shed on a very small portion of the land sought to be acquired. Furthermore, the respondents have adopted a pick and choose policy and have released the land of some influential persons, instances of which have been given in para no.9 of the writ petition. Counsel further states that this has been done to give an advantage to the colonizers in the vicinity, names of which have been given in para no.7 of the writ petition.” It is specific case of the petitioners that residential houses owned by many other land owners were kept out of acquisition whereas the said relief was not granted to them arbitrarily. It was further averred that land of one M/s Harpreet Food situated in village Faridpur was released from acquisition. By not giving that relief to the petitioners, a discriminatory treatment has been meted out to them. Today in Court, reply has been filed wherein it is admitted that the land was released in favour of M/s Harpreet Food as stated by the petitioners. It is also an admitted fact that as per policy of the State Government, if the constructed building owned by a land owner does not hamper the over-all development of the scheme, it is not to be acquired. In the reply filed, it is nowhere stated that in releasing the building owned by the petitioners will obstruct the right of way or any other public utility to C.W.P.No.11089 of 2011 -3- be provided within the scheme to be formulated on the acquired area. The right of the petitioners has been denied simply by stating that they have failed to file objection under Section 5-A of the Act. Be that as it may, the petitioners are poor and illiterate persons. May be that they have failed to avail an opportunity by filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act, however, having regard to the existing policy of State Government not to acquire the built up houses, the relief of release of land under construction cannot be denied to the petitioners. It is not in dispute that even in cases where objections were not filed, built up area was kept out of acquisition. If that is so, we feel that the said relief cannot be denied to the petitioners. In the circumstances, we allow this writ petition and direct the Land Acquisition Collector at Faridabad to go to the spot for an inspection and after measurement, the constructed building of the petitioners along with proportionate vacant land, as per policy of the State Government, be released from acquisition. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE July 18, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE