C.W.P.No.5785 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 16.09.2010 C.W.P.No.5785 of 1986 Anil Kumar son of Naval Kishore ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.5310 of 1986 Lal Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.5786 of 1986 Sunil Kumar and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate and Mr.Agam Jind, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G., Haryana. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Through this order, we propose to dispose of C.W.P.Nos.5785, 5310 and 5786 of 1986 as common question of law and facts is involved therein. C.W.P.No.5785 of 1986 -2- For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.5785 of 1986. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash notification dated 6.12.1983 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') proposing to acquire land measuring 1.87 acres including land of the petitioners. Further challenge has been laid to the notification issued on 9.7.1984 under Section 6 of the Act. It is on record that the land was acquired for a public purpose i.e. for construction of roads and residential purposes, as per the development plan of Sectors 36 & 37, Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. Award in this case was passed on 20.9.1986. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, award having been passed beyond the period of 2 years is not valid and on account of that, the acquisition proceedings have elapsed. We are not convinced with the argument raised. The provisions of Section 11-A of the Act read thus:- “11A. Period within which an award shall be made.- (1) The Collector shall make an award under section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse: Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award C.W.P.No.5785 of 1986 -3- shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement. (Emphasis supplied) Explanation.- In computing the period of two years referred to in this section, the period during which any action or proceeding to be taken in pursuance of the said declaration is stayed by an order of a Court shall be excluded.” It is not in dispute that Amendment Act, 1984 was made applicable with effect from 24.9.1984. In proviso to Section 11-A of the Act, it is clearly mentioned that in cases where declaration under Section 6 of the Act has already been published before the commencement of above said Act, award can be passed by the Collector within a period of two years from the date of commencement. Admittedly, in terms of above-said proviso, award was passed within a period of two years i.e. on 20.9.1986. In view of above, the argument as raised has no legs to stand and is hereby rejected. During pendency of these writ petitions, petitioners moved applications for amendment of these writ petitions to incorporate subsequent events. It is stated by counsel for the petitioners at the time of arguments that the land in dispute, was acquired to provide an alternative route to Sher Shah Suri National Highway No.1, during the pendency of these writ petitions, as per news item brought on record the encroachment upon National Highway No.1 was removed and, therefore, there is no need to acquire the land in question. C.W.P.No.5785 of 1986 -4- We feel that such a plea cannot be taken at this stage. The Authorities are the best Judge to see which road is needed or not. It is also on record that as per reply filed, whatever land was required for construction of road, the same was acquired accordingly and rest of the area falling in Khasra No.7//16/2/1 and Khasra No.7//25/2 was left out of acquisition. In view of these facts, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE September 16, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE