C.W.P.No. 2361Of 2004. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 2361of 2004. Date of Decision : 19.12.2008. Suraj Bhan Petitioner. VERSUS State of Haryana and others. Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. --- Present:- Mr. A..K.Chopra, Sr.Advocate, with Mr. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate, and Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G.Haryana with Ms. Palika Monga, Assistant Advocate, General, Haryana. --- 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M.KUMAR,J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2361 of 2004 and 716 of 2004 as common question of law and facts are involved. However, facts are being referred from Civil Writ Petition No. 2361 of 2004. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing acquisition proceedings initiated by notification dated 24.12.2002(Annexure-P7) issued under Section 4 and declaration dated 15.12.2003 (Annexure P-9) C.W.P.No. 2361Of 2004. 2 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act'). In para No.3 of the petition a specific averment has been made that the land in question is adjacent to Konsiwas Road, Rewari and the petitioner has constructed a pucca house. It has been further pointed out that on the opposite side of the house of the petitioner there are constructed houses of a number of influential persons. The petitioner has placed reliance on a policy dated 26.6.1991 (Annexure P-4) framed by the State of Haryana, which is to the effect that constructed houses and running factories would not be acquired for public purposes. The petitioner has claimed that he has installed a factory under the name and style of 'M/S. Kissan Perforators' which is registered with the Sales-tax Department (P-5) & P-6). In the written statement filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, respondent No.2 dated 6.4.2004, in the corresponding para 2 it has been stated that the question of construction over the suit land has been correctly depicted in the report prepared subsequent to conducting of spot inspection by the Land Acquisition Collector and the Joint Site Inspection Committee. In para 3, reference has been made to the spot inspection carried by the Land Acquisition Collector and Joint Site Inspection Committee stating that the said house was under construction in Rectangle No. 180//6 and 179//10 and 30. When the case came up for hearing on 17.12.2008,original record concerning objections raised by C.W.P.No. 2361Of 2004. 3 the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act was produced. On perual of original record it was found that In respect of Khasra Nos. 180/26, 28 and 29 it has been categorically recorded that a factory measuring 103' x 155' was in existence before Section 4 notificaton, which was issued on 24.12.2002 (P-7). In respect of M/s Kissan Perforators, Khasra No. 167 has been mentioned and an office measuring 50' x 22' is stated to be existed before Section 4 notification. Likewise, a house measuring 54' x 54 and a Samadhi measuring 6' x 6' is stated to be in existence before Section 4 notification and Khasra Nos. 22/2/1, 22/2/3, 22/2/4 and 22/2/6 have been mentioned. However, against Khasra No. 180 a double storey Kothi is stated to be under construction in an area measuring 50' x 55' on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In Khasra No. 179, three rooms measuring 45' x 15' and a hall of 90' x 80' are stated to have been built up after Section 4 notification. All these details are missing from the written statement although the record pertains to the year 2003 as the objections were filed on 20.1.2003. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the statement made by Shri Depinder Singh Dhesi, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana Department of Urban Estates who has stated that the claim of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law and if constructed area of the petitioner deserves to be released as per the policy of the C.W.P.No. 2361Of 2004. 4 State or the provision of Act then the needful shall be done. In view of above, we dispose of the instant petition by issuing a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the claim made by the petitioners in these petitions. The needful shall be done preferably within a period of four weeks but not later than 6.2.2009. For this purpose the respective petitions filed by the petitioners shall be treated as representations on their behalf. The petitioners through their counsel are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner on 6.1.2009.The petitioners would be at liberty to produce additional documents, if any, in support of their claim. These petitions, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. (M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE 19.12.2008 ( JORA SINGH) Anoop JUDGE