Civil Writ Petition No. 11530 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 11530 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.10.2009 Mohinder Singh Dhankar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1, 3 and 4. Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) For acquisition of land of the petitioner, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “1894 Act”) was issued. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, submits that petitioner had filed objections under Section 5(A) of 1894 Act. The objections were dealt with and were rejected. Rejection of the objections was not challenged and acquisition had attained finality. By filing the present writ petition, petitioner seeks writ in the nature of mandamus that the Authorities be directed to leave a passage for the petitioner for ingress and outgress to his remaining land from the Civil Writ Petition No. 11530 of 2008 2 eastern side. Respondent No.2-Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, has filed reply and made the following preliminary submissions:- XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “That the petitioner has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands. The petitioner has concealed the fact that, he never had a revenue rasta to approach his land from Eastern side. It is submitted that the land of the petitioner falls in Khewat No. 1086/986 and Khasra No. 43//1/1, 2. This Khewat No. 1086/986 has a revenue rasta No. 144 on western side which passes through Khasra No. 44//5, 6, 15, 16, 25 and all these Khasra Nos. have been released from acquisition. The petitioner never had a revenue rasta from eastern side of his land. Further, it is submitted that the land of the petitioner was released subject to condition that the petitioner would pay the external development charges which were to be paid by 15.02.308 and execute an agreement with the authority, but the petitioner had failed to execute an agreement and pay the external development charges till date”. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX Counsel for the petitioner is not able to satisfy this Court, as to how this Court could issue a direction called for when the process of Civil Writ Petition No. 11530 of 2008 3 acquisition has completed and the petitioner had not assailed rejection of his objections by the Land Acquisition Officer. At this stage, Mr. Hooda has placed on record a true translation of communication received by the petitioner from Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Rohtak. The communication is taken on case file as Annexure P7 on the oral prayer made by Mr. Hooda. The concluding portion of Annexure P7 read as under:- XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “So far as the question of giving of passage is concerned, you can demand the same only after deposit of EDC and passage is possible as per the Sector planning and as per the conditions. Thus, you deposit the amount of EDC in this office forthwith so that your agreement can be approved”. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX Counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance with Annexure P7, he will deposit external development charges in four equated six monthly instalments and respondent No.2 be directed to consider the demand of the petitioner leaving passage sympathetically in accordance with the provisions of law. To this submission, Mr. Sheokand has submitted that as per Annexure P7 request of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent. Taking into consideration that remaining land available with the petitioner is one and a half acres in which he has constructed his house and is also source of his livelihood, it is directed that in case Civil Writ Petition No. 11530 of 2008 4 petitioner deposit external development charges in four equated six monthly instalments and comply with the condition and the rules, his prayer for release of the passage shall be considered sympathetically by respondent No.2 in accordance with the prevailing norms and rules. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 21, 2009 “DK”