CWP No.8463 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 8463 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.8.2009 Subhash and others ....Petitioners. vs. State of Haryana and others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.D.ANAND --- Present: Mr.K.Saurabh Advocate, for the petitioners. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) Through the instant writ petition the petitioners are seeking to impugn two notifications dated 15.6.2006 and 14.6.2007 issued under sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Through these notifications, 80.20 acres of land falling in the revenue estates of villages Shahjanpur, Raipur, Revali and Shahpur Turk, tehsil and district Sonipat, have been acquired for the purpose of developing and utilizing the same for residential and commercial sectors in the town of Sonipat. The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that the petitioners had filed objections under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after the issuance of notification under section 4 dated 15.6.2006, and that, despite the fact that there were legitimate and justified grounds, the State Government did not accept the same but ordered the acquisition of the land of the petitioners by issuing notification under section 6 dated 14.6.2007. CWP No.8463 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners, in sum and substance, desires to press his objections and thereby to demonstrate that the acquisition of the petitioners' land is arbitrary. In order to raise the instant issue, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended, that the petitioners have raised constructions on the land sought to be acquired which is presently being used by the petitioners for storing fodder for their cattle, for parking and storage of agricultural implements, and smadhi. In order to appreciate the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we consider it just and appropriate to extract in its entirety the application preferred by the petitioners under section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The contents of the aforesaid application are accordingly being reproduced hereunder:- “ That we are residents of Vill.Raipur, Distt.Sonipat and are owner in possession of the abovementioned land. We have come to learn from our known sources that your department intends to acquire the abovementioned land in the near future for the development of Sector 9. Apart from this land, there is other land also in the village and we do not have any objection to their acquisition, but on the abovementioned Killa no.20/3 & 20/8 which are abutting to the village firni, samadhis of our ancestors and temples have been built, which are of great religious significance not only for our family but for the entire Khatri gotra. We are ready to pay any price/compensation that the Govt. may ask in lieu of not acquiring these Killa no.20/3 & 20/8. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the abovementioned land be not acquired and our sentiments may kindly be upheld.” A perusal of the aforesaid application reveals, that there was no construction erected on the land in question for storing fodder for cattle and/or for CWP No.8463 of 2009 3 parking and storage of agricultural implements. It is therefore natural to infer that the constructions actually made on the acquired land for the aforesaid two purposes was not there when the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued by the respondents on 15.6.2006. The aforesaid constructions cannot, therefore, be the basis of seeking release of the land of the petitioners from acquisition. In the background of the factual position depicted hereinabove, the only remaining construction is that of a smadhi, a photograph whereof, has been placed on the record of this case as Annexure P3. A perusal of Annexure P3 reveals a new constructed smadhi in an approximate area of 10ftx10ft. It is not possible for us to accept the claim of the petitioners, that the action of the respondents in not releasing their lands from acquisition proceedings was unjustified in the background of the limited construction on the acquired land, moreso because there is no material on the record of this case to demonstrate when the aforesaid smadhi came to be constructed. 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 August 6, 2009 rk