IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 1608 of 1994 Date of Decision: April 21, 2010 Nand Lal Adib …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Additional AG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notification dated 21.3.1991 (P-8) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’); declaration dated 18.3.1992, issued under Section 6 of the Act (P-10) and award dated 16.3.1994 (P-13). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and peruse the paper book with their able assistance. It is conceded position that the issue raised in the instant petition is no longer res integra. The aforementioned notifications were also subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 10293 of 1992 (Hisar Ram Nagar Co-op House Building Society Ltd. Hisar). After noticing the facts and the arguments raised by the learned counsel, we have allowed the said petition vide order dated 9.2.2010, by observing as under:- C.W.P. No. 1608 of 1994 “ After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perus- ing the record, we are of the view that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners, initiated by the respondent-State cannot be sustained. It is well settled that the issu- ance of repeated notifications for acquisition of land results into pegging down the price and it is not judicially acceptable. In the present case, the land in dispute is sought to be acquired since 1969 and the first notification was allowed to lapse by the respondent- State on the excuse that the scheme concerning Urban Estate II was in the process of completion. It did not require much imagination that the scheme was unlikely to complete when the notification un- der Section 4 of the Act was issued in 1969. The respondent, how- ever, preferred to again issue notification under Section 4 of the Act in 1974 which again was permitted to lapse. The third attempt which resulted into issuance of notification under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act on 01.09.1977 and 12.08.1980 did not succeed as the acqui- sition was quashed by this High Court on 19.02.1982. When the land was sought to be acquired fourth time in 1983 and in 1984 (Annexures P5 & P6), then the land belonging to the petitioner was released on the ground that no body was likely to have a plot allot- ted near the municipal and HUDA disposal works. The acquisition of the rest of the land was upheld along with the release of this land by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ghansham Dass Goyal (Supra). Thereafter, the land was purchased by the petitioner-Soci- ety vide registered sale deed on 16.06.1990. The respondent yet again issued impugned notification on 21.03.1991 and 18.03.1992 (Annexures P7 & P8). The purpose of purchase of land by the Soci- 2 C.W.P. No. 1608 of 1994 ety was to develop a residential colony by allotting the plots to its members. The plots have already been allotted as is evident from the site plan (Annexure P10). The plot measures about 160 Sq.yards and construction have also been raised on these plots. It was in somewhat similar circumstances that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited's case (supra) has quashed the notification issued under Section 4 & 6 of the Act after recording its satisfaction about the genuineness of the grievance made by the members of various house building societies which were to cater to the need of low pay group. In the present case also, 160 Sq.yards plot is to be allotted to the members and the purpose of acquisition is also similar to the one for which the Society has carved out the plots. The aforesaid view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court has been followed by this Court in National Fertilizers Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited's (supra) case. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this short ground alone because the plot of 160 Sq.yards is sought to be allotted to large number of employees who are in the lower income group. Moreover, the land was earlier re- leased on the pretext that it was situated close to the Municipal Committee and HUDA disposal works. No change in the facts and circumstances has been pleaded. Therefore, once the land was re- leased, then it cannot be acquired for the same purpose unless it is shown by cogent evidence that there is change in circumstances. For the aforesaid view, we draw support from the observation made in Paragraph 8 of the judgment in Roshan Lal's case (supra). An- other aspect of the matter is that plots of two members stands al- 3 C.W.P. No. 1608 of 1994 ready released from acquisition as is evident from the perusal of or- der dated 16.01.2008. According to the aforesaid order, the Gov- ernment had decided to release the land measuring 288 Sq.yards belonging to S/Sh.Tara Singh and Gurcharan Singh who are mem- bers of the petitioner-Society.” We find that the facts of the instant petition are similar to the one which have already been noticed in CWP No. 10293 of 1992. Accordingly, while adopting the same reasoning we allow the instant petition in terms of our judgment rendered in CWP No. 10293 of 1992, decided on 9.2.2010 (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 21, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4