IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1949 of 2011 Date of decision: 01.03.2011 Ajay Kalia …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.3109 of 2011 Application allowed, documents are taken on record. CWP No.1949 of 2011 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays that a notification, issued, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 7.2.2008, proposing to acquire vast tract of land, for a public purpose, namely, ‘for development and utilization as residential and commercial Sectors 76, 77 and 78 Faridabad’. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act on 6.2.2009. In this acquisition process, petitioner’s land measuring 32 kanal 3 marla is ordered to be acquired. In the writ petition, it is specific case of the petitioner that he has constructed a residential house in the property, in dispute. Further that contrary to the Policy dated 26.10.2007 of the State Government, his house has not been left out of acquisition Civil Writ Petition No.1949 of 2011 arbitrarily, whereas similar relief was granted to many other land owners. To say that construction exists in the property, in dispute, reference was made to khasra girdawari entries from 27.10.2008 to 27.3.2009, in which, for the first time, an entry came regarding existence of some construction. So far as report made by the Land Acquisition Collector is concerned, it is mentioned therein that construction exists only in 100 square yard of land that too in the shape of servant quarters. Noting above said contradiction, on 2.2.2011, following order was passed by this Court:- “In this writ petition, it is contention of counsel for the petitioner that the land measuring 17 kanal 4 marla is bounded a boundary wall and therein the petitioner has constructed a big double-storied house. It is further stated that construction was in existence before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 7.2.2008. Perusal of report made by the Land Acquisition Collector, when objections filed by the petitioner under Section 5-A of the Act were disposed of, indicates to the contrary, wherein it is only stated that construction exists only in 100 square yard and that too in the shape of servant quarters. It is a ‘B’ class construction. Rest of the property is surrounded by high wall and some trees are standing therein. No photograph of the area has been put on record. There is a contradiction so far as averment made by the petitioner and report made by the Land Acquisition Collector is concerned. Except making bald statement, there is no other evidence on record to show that the building was in existence prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.1949 of 2011 Furthermore, as per entry made on 27.10.2008 in khasra girdawari placed on record, construction was not shown in any part of the land in question. Entry regarding gair mumkin house in an area measuring 1 kanal 16 marla came only in khasra girdwari, which was entered on 27.3.2009 i.e. after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.” By moving an application photographs have been put on record, which clearly indicate that false averment has been made in the writ petition and also in the application now moved. As per revenue record, the petitioner is a resident of House No.299, Greator Kailash, New Delhi, whereas in a very wrong manner, in the writ petition, he has shown himself as a resident of village Faridpur, Tehsildar and district Faridabad. Perusal of the photographs put on record clearly indicate that other than the boundary wall around the entire land, measuring more than 32 kanal, a small construction exists which appears to be a servant quarter and not residence of the petitioner. In the objection filed under Section 5-A of the Act, it has also been wrongly stated that the petitioner’s residential house exists in the property, in dispute. A litigant, who makes false averment, is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. Otherwise also, land is lying vacant and has rightly been ordered to be acquired. The petitioner has failed to make out any case of discrimination with him. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 01.03.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3