CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12475 OF 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 25 , 2011. Parties Name Smt. Rakesh Sharma ...PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana ...RESPONDENT CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. H.C. Rahi, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana; Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT In terms of the order passed by us on May 19, 2011, copy of the site plan has been produced. The same is taken on record as Mark A. It is a classic case, in which by defying an order passed by this Court on August 6, 1992 ( in Civil Writ Petition No. 2560 of 1990), directing release of petitioner's land, again her small plot/ house has been ordered to be acquired in a very arbitrary manner. As per record, the petitioner is owner of 230 Sq. yards of land, in which, as per her case, she had constructed a residential house. On April 29, 1987, by issuing a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act), followed by a declaration, issued CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12475 OF 2002 -2- under Section 6 of the Act, on April 20, 1988, land of the petitioner along with a huge chunk of land was ordered to be acquired. Petitioner, alleging discrimination done to her, came to this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 2560 of 1990, which was allowed by this Court on August 6, 1992. At that time, it was noted that many other houses/ vacant plots were kept out of acquisition, however, the same relief was not granted to the petitioner arbitrarily. By taking note of the same, it was observed that “ the action of the respondents in not releasing the plot of the petitioner, even though the adjoining plot has been left out from the array of the acquisition, is nothing short of discrimination. There were absolutely no distinguishing features that could entail one treatment given to Inder Parkash Gupta and others and different one to the petitioner” , by observing as above, the writ petition was allowed. Qua land of the petitioner, direction was issued to the respondents not to acquire or exempt the plot of the petitioner, detail of which was given in that writ petition. Thereafter, without any application of mind, again vide the impugned notifications dated May 2, 2001, and April 30, 2002, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act respectively, plot of the petitioner has been ordered to be acquired. Upon notice, reply has been filed, wherein it is stated that at the time of acquisition, only 'C class' construction was in existence in the plot, owned by the petitioner. However, it is not disputed that qua many other land owners, their houses/ construction were kept out of acquisition. We feel that as per established law, in granting release from acquisition to the land owners, discrimination cannot be done on the basis of quality of the construction. Once relief was given to many others on the basis of existence CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12475 OF 2002 -3- of construction, the same relief could not have been denied to the petitioner. On May 9, 2011, following order was passed by this Court: “Mr. Sehgal is directed to bring on record the survey report done by the Land Acquisition Collector after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and also to furnish detail as to how much land was released out of the plots mentioned in para No. 11 and 12 of this writ petition.” Thereafter, survey report was produced in Court, which clearly indicates that some construction was in existence in the plot owned by the petitioner. It also transpires that adjoining houses were kept out of acquisition. Taking note of the same, following order was passed by this Court on May 19, 2011: “It is not in dispute that at an earlier point of time in the year 1987, an attempt was made to acquire the land owned by the petitioner. Petitioner alleged discrimination with her and came to this Court by filing CWP No. 2560 of 1990, which was allowed on 6.8.1992 directing the authorities not to acquire or exempt the plot of the petitioner, details of which was given in that writ petition. Thereafter, it appears again the said small piece of land was made subject matter of acquisition by issuing notification in the month of May, 2001. It is very surprising as to how this small piece of land can be made a part of the second acquisition when surrounding area next to this plot had already CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12475 OF 2002 -4- stood acquired by the notification issued earlier. In the circumstances, we direct Mr. Sehgal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana to put on record site plan distinctly showing boundaries of the first acquisition and the second acquisition. Adjourned to 23.5.2011.” In response thereto, site plan mark A has been put on record, which clearly indicates that the plots/ houses bearing No. 105 and 107 were kept out of acquisition, whereas land of the petitioner bearing No. 106, falling in between the above said two plots was ordered to be acquired. We feel that action is not only contrary to the earlier directions issued by this Court but also is unjustified / irrational. There is non- application of mind. Despite directions , issued by this Court, the land was ordered to be acquired without any justification. When acquiring land, the authorities are supposed to adopt a humane approach and an attempt should be made to disrupt minimum number of the land owners in a given case. In view of facts, mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed, notifications impugned in this writ petition qua land of the petitioner are quashed and land of the petitioner is released from acquisition. The petitioner is also held entitled to get costs of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 25 , 2011. DKC