CWP No.8889 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 8889 of 2009 Date of decision: 16.7.2009 Sohan Singh and others ..Petitioners vs. State of Punjab and others. ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.D.ANAND --- Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) The pleadings of the instant writ petition reveal that a notification was issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 4.9.1998, proposing to acquire 82 kanals and 13 marlas of land, for the expansion of the New Mandi Township at Raikot. Dissatisfied with the proposed acquisition the petitioners are stated to have filed objections under section 5-A of the Act, whereupon, the respondents did not take any further action, inasmuch as, no notification was issued by the respondents under section 6 of the Act. Resultantly, the land of the petitioners was not finally acquired consequent upon the issuance of the notification dated 4.9.1998, referred to hereinabove. The pleadings in the instant writ petition also reveal that for the same purpose, namely, for expansion of the New Mandi Township at Raikot, the respondents issued yet another notification under section 4 of CWP No.8889 of 2009 2 the Act dated 20.2.2006, seeking to acquire 62 kanals and 13 marlas of land. Once again all the petitioners, hereinabove, are stated to have filed objections under section 5-A of the Act. Having not acceded to the objections raised by the petitiones, the respondents issued a notification under section 6 of the Act on 12.3.2007. As such, the land of the petitioners which was a part of 62 kanals and 13 marlas of land came to be acquired. Consequent upon the acquisition of land of the petitioners in furtherance of the notifications dated 20.2.2006 and 12.3.2007, the Land Acquisition Collector, Colonization Department, Punjab, announced his award on 27.11.2008. Through the instant writ petition the petitioners are seeking to assail the action of the respondents in acquiring their land through the notification dated 12.3.2007 (Annexure P26). Two submissions have been advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners Firstly, that the same land owned by the petitioners was sought to be acquired by the respondents in 1998, however, on account of the objections raised by the petitioners the proposed acquisition was dropped. It is submitted, that for the same reasons, as had weighed with the respondents at the earlier juncture, the land of the petitioners should not be acquired. Secondly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that on account of the development in the area, which is demonstrated by placing on the record of this case the existence of the names of the petitioners in the voters list, as also particulars of payments of electricity and water charges, as also house tax, the land of the petitioners where they have established dwelling units should be excluded. CWP No.8889 of 2009 3 Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed merely on account of delay and laches, inasmuch as, the determination to acquire the petitioners' land was expressed at the time of the issuance of the notification dated 12.3.2007 under section 6 of the Act whereas the instant petition came to be filed on 28.5.2009. In fact the instant writ petition was filed even after the award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector on 27.11.2008. Be that as it may, we find no merit even in the two submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Merely because at an earlier juncture the respondents had not continued the process of acquisition after having issued notification under section 4 of the Act, is not sufficient to conclude, that the acquisition proceedings should be dropped now as well, on the objections filed under section 5-A of the Act, as there is no material on the record of this case to demonstrate the real reasons for dropping acquisition proceedings initiated as a consequence of the notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act. In so far as the construction made by the petitioners and others over the land which has now been acquired (as a consequence of the issuance of the notification under section 6 of the Act dated 12.3.2007) is concerned, we are satisfied that it is open to the State to acquire even built up area for a greater public interest/purpose. We are satisfied that the expansion of the New Mandi Township at Raikot, is a purpose for which even built up area in the vicinity of the existing Mandi Township could have been acquired, keeping in mind the fact that area adjoining the existing mandi also has to be acquired. CWP No.8889 of 2009 4 For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in this petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) Judge July 16, 2009 rk