IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8224 of 2005 Date of Decision: July 8, 2008 Ram Kumar and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sarwan Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioners have prayed for quashing notification dated 27.11.2003 (P-1), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 24.11.2004 (P-2), issued under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners have claimed that they are owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 13/20/1/1 (0-14) and 25/2, situated in the revenue estate of Village Tikri, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It has been further claimed that the petitioners have constructed residential house and shops on the land in question. 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 24.5.2005, learned counsel for the petitioners made a statement and C.W.P. No. 8224 of 2005 had given up claim of the petitioners regarding the area described as Khasra No. 25/2 as there has been no evidence to the effect that any construction had been made prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, which was issued on 27.11.2003. However, on the basis of the jamabandi for the year 1997-98 (P-4) it was claimed that the building over land comprised in Khasra No. 13/20/1/1 (0-14 Marlas) was constructed much prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24.5.2005, stayed dispossession of the petitioners qua the aforementioned land only with a rider that no further construction was to be made. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the claim made by the petitioners for release of land has been considered by the State Government. To that effect, an affidavit of the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, has been filed alongwith Annexure R-1 disclosing that the prayer made by the petitioners for releasing the land from acquisition could not have been acceded to, inasmuch as, the land belonging to the petitioners falls in green belt and service road. The land of the petitioners is almost vacant and there are tin shed and scattered construction. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, we are of the considered view that there is no possibility of releasing the land from acquisition as the land belonging to the petitioners falls in green belt and service road. The land is almost vacant and there are tin shed and scattered construction. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. However, since it has come on record that 2 C.W.P. No. 8224 of 2005 the construction was raised by the petitioners much prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, it is directed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners for rehabilitation in accordance with the policy of the State and law. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) July 8, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3