IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6630 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 16.12.2010 Vijender Singh others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Vikram Singh and Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocates for the petitioners Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for HUDA Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), proposing to acquire land measuring 249.49 acres, including land of the petitioners. Further challenge is to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 21.8.2008. Still further, order passed on 31.12.2009 (P7), declining prayer of the petitioners to release their land from acquisition, is also under challenge. CWP No.6630 of 2010(O&M) It is apparent from the records that earlier also, the petitioners came to this Court by filing CWP No.8460 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court on 28.5.2009, directing respondent No.1 to take decision on a representation filed by the petitioners. The said representation thereafter, was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 31.12.2009. The relevant extract of the aforesaid order, reads thus:- “I have verified the position relating to the Development Plan of Safidon as well as earlier acquisition carried out by PWD B&R for the Bye pass. The Draft Development Plan of Safidon was notified on 16.3.2007. As per the Draft Development Plan, the Green Belt along with Bye-pass has a width of 200 feet. As per the Development Plan, the Master Road adjoining the petitioner’s land is 75 meters wide out of which at present only 30 Meters is constructed and approximately 45 meter on the opposite side has been kept for widening the road. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. The land Acquisition Collector in his report under section 5-A had mentioned that in his claim, the petitioner has mentioned that in the land in question, the petitioner had constructed a residential house, 4 tubewells and a boundary wall. In addition there were a large No. of fruit bearing trees. In his recommendations, the Land Acquisition Collector had mentioned that except for area outside the Green Belt which was 10 Marlas, the rest of the land be acquired. In his representation, the petitioner has claimed that he had constructed a residential house worth more than Rs.1.00 2 CWP No.6630 of 2010(O&M) lacs before the Section 4 Notification. Different claims regarding the existence of the structures before Section 4 are being made by the petitioner and the Urban Estate Department. Whereas petitioner is stating that the structures were constructed before Section 4, the Urban Estate Department is disputing the same. In order to arrive at the true picture, the DTP Jind was asked to give a report regarding the various structures existing as of today. A copy of the site plan depicting the various structures is attached with this order. The report of DTP Jind depicts the position as of 16.12.2009. In all there are 10 structures (A-J). Out of the 10 structures, six structures (C, F, G, H. I, J) are having a dimension of only 10’x10’. These structures are having a wall constructed with mud material and the roof is of wooden slippers. Even on 16.12.2009, all of these rooms were lying vacant and not being put to any use. The biggest structure is the structure ‘D’ having dimension of 22x28’ = 616 square feet. As per the site inspection done by DTP Jind, this is a cowshed and even now it is not being put to any use. The second largest structure is the structure ‘A’ having dimension of 12’x38’=456 square feet. This is also being used only as a store. The third larges structure is structure ‘B’ having dimension of 12’x23’ = 276 square feet and which is being used only for a cowshed. The STP, Jind at the time of inspection has also reported that no family member of the petitioner / labour is residing in the constructed structures. Thus it will be observed that out of 10 structures, 6 structures 3 CWP No.6630 of 2010(O&M) are such which because of the dimensions and there isolated locations cannot be used for residential purpose. Even the larger structure that have been constructed are either being used as cowshed or for chhara machine or for store. One of the points raised by the petitioner in his representation is that the surrounding area of the land in question has already been released as one entire block. From the report submitted by DTP Jind and CTP HUDA, this claim of the petitioner has been found to be incorrect. From the overall circumstances of the cases, I have come to the definite conclusion that the various structures constructed on the petitioner’s land were never constructed for the purpose of residential use. There can be some dispute regarding which all structures existed before Section 4 and which came up after section 4. However, the main thrust of the petitioner’s representation was that the land in question was being used by him for residential purposes. This claim of the petitioner has been found to be totally without any basis. It is also significant to note that the entire land of the petitioner falls in the Green Belt separating Jind-Assandh Bye Pass from Sector 8. On either side of the petitioner’s land, there is no structure in this Green Belt. Therefore, the representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioners has been found to be devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected. I order accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the petitioners.” In response to notice issued, reply has been filed, wherein also, it is stated that except 10 marlas of land, entire land owned by the 4 CWP No.6630 of 2010(O&M) petitioners falls in the green belt. So far as leaving out the land of others is concerned, it is specifically stated in order Annexure P7 and also in the written statement that the land was released on account of buildings existing thereon. No case of discrimination has been made out. Sufficient relief has already been granted to the petitioners. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 16.12.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 5