IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.2253 of 2008 Date of decision: 7.5.2009 Surjit Singh. -----Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Mandeep S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G.Punjab for the State. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. ----- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.: 1. This petition seeks quashing of acquisition proceedings in pursuance of notifications dated May 21, 2004 under Section 4 and May 24, 2004 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and also for quashing of order dated 20.12.2007, Annexure P-10, whereby the State declined to release the land of the petitioner from acquisition. 2. While issuing notice, this Court vide order dated 15.2.2008, observed as under:- CWP No.2253 of 2008 “Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had earlier filed C.W.P. No. 12787 of 2004 and while issuing notice of motion on 23.8.2004, dispossession was stayed, meanwhile. It is submitted that during the pendency of the said writ petition, the Punjab Urban Development Authority (‘PUDA’ for short) had recommended vide its letter dated 4.12.2007 (Anexure P.9) to release the land in question. In view of the said recommendations, the earlier writ petition was disposed of in terms of order dated 6.12.2007, in which it was noticed that the PUDA had recommended for release of the petitioner’s land. However, since the matter was pending with the Government, it was deemed expedient to dispose of the said writ petition with the direction to the Secretary concerned of the Government to take decision on merit with regard to the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Additional Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development (Housing- I Branch) has, vide his impugned decision dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P.10), rejected the claim for release of the land by not even adverting to the recommendations dated 4.12.2007 (Annexure P.2) of PUDA. Therefore, it is submitted that necessary material which was liable to be taken into consideration in the decision making process has been excluded from consideration. Besides, it is submitted that the decision taken by the Additional Secretary, in terms of said memo. dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P.10) is perverse inasmuch as he has recorded that the spot in question is a crossing of four-roads, whereas from the site plan (Annexure P.2) it is evident that on one side there is a railway line, in which there is no crossing. Rather there is a boundary wall running along the railway line. Notice of motion. 2 CWP No.2253 of 2008 Learned counsel, who has filed Caveat Petition, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 4. List for hearing on 10.4.2008. Meanwhile, status quo be maintained.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to recommendation of the Chief Administration, Jalandhar Development Authority, Annexure P-9. He points out that in the order, Annexure P-10, the reasons given in favour of the petitioner have not been adverted to. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Even though the decision has to be taken by the State Government in its discretion and the State Government is not bound by any recommendation, the decision by the State Government has to be arrived at after taking into account relevant considerations, including reasons in the recommendation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on earlier order passed by this Court on 6.12.2007, to the following effect:- “C.W.P. No.12787 of 2004 Present: Mr. Mandeep Bedi, Advocate Mr. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Balvinder Singh, Advocate. 3 CWP No.2253 of 2008 Learned counsel for PUDA, during the course of hearing, submitted a letter issued by Chief Administrator, PUDA, to the Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Government of Punjab, recommending the case of the petitioner for release of his land except 3 marlas that has already been transferred to the PUDA and on which a construction has also been raised. In view of the decision and recommendation of the PUDA, for release of petitioner’s land which is pending with the Government of Punjab, we deem it expedient in the interest of justice to dispose off this CWP No.12787 of 2004 with a direction to the Secretary concerned to take decision on merit within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order. Thus, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- Uma Nath Singh Judge Sd/- Rajive Bhalla December 06, 2007 Judge” 7. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on merits, we direct the State of Punjab to take fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE May 07, 2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) ashwani JUDGE 4