IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. Nos.10798 of 1992 Date of decision: 4.2.2009 Inderjit Behal & others. -----Petitioners Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate & Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate with Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for respondents. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of notifications dated 10.1.1992 and 23.6.1992 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). 2. Case of the petitioners is that one of them has a licence of nursery and also permission for mushroom farm. The petitioners are having garden and cattle sheds, besides farm houses in the land sought to be acquired. Substance of the notifications was not published in the locality. The public purpose C.W.P. No.10798 of 1992 mentioned in the notifications was vague and on these grounds, the notifications were liable to be quashed. 3. In the reply filed, the acquisition has been defended by stating that there was due publication of the substance of the notifications in the manner prescribed under the law. The petitioners did not file any objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Those who filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act, were given hearing. The purpose for acquisition was plantation scheme of the forest department. 4. Stay was granted in terms of order passed in CWP No.9491 of 1992, arising out of the same acquisition. 5. C.M. No.23047 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners. In para 7 thereof, it is mentioned that purpose of acquisition is plantation of trees, while the petitioners have already planted number of trees and since the purpose of acquisition which was already achieved, the acquisition was unnecessary. 6. C.M. No.1410 of 2006 has been filed on behalf of the respondents to place on record judgments dated 2.5.1997 and 13.8.1997 upholding the impugned acquisition. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have planted trees which are now grown up and no purpose will be achieved by acquiring the land for the same purpose. The petitioners are willing to give undertaking that they will not cut the trees and continue to use the land for plantation. In 2 C.W.P. No.10798 of 1992 support of this submission, reliance has been placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Eros City Developers Private Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 291 P&H and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. AIR 1990 SC 645. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this petition was entertained on account of CWP No.9430 of 1992 Balbir Kaur v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others which was already pending in respect of the same acquisition, but at the time of hearing of the said petition, this petition could not be put up with the said case. The CWP No.9430 of 1992 has been dismissed on 2.5.1997. The judgment has been affirmed in LPA No.253 of 1997 Shankar Lal & others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others decided on 13.8.1997. SLP against the said order has also been dismissed on 19.9.1997 being SLP (Civil) No. 17426 of 1997. 10. Question for consideration is whether this Court having already dismissed petitions in respect of same acquisition, a different view is called for and whether there is bar against acquisition of land for afforestation on the ground that the petitioners have already planted trees? 11. From the earlier judgment of this Court dated 2.5.1997 in Balbir Kaur (supra), we find that sixteen writ petitions were dismissed, challenging the same acquisition. Questions raised therein were non-publication in the prescribed manner, the 3 C.W.P. No.10798 of 1992 acquisition being without complying with provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and that there was no purpose as the petitioners therein were running the business of nurseries etc. All these three points were considered and rejected. It was held that afforestation was a public purpose and publication had been duly made and there was no infirmity in the acquisition. It was, however, observed that in view of observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP v. Pista Devi AIR 1986 SC 2025, the issue of rehabilitation may be considered by the Administration. In the judgment of Division Bench in Shankar Lal (supra), the said view was upheld. It was held that even if the petitioners were running the nursery business, there was no bar to the acquisition on payment of market value. 12. In Ghaziabad Sheromani Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, having regard to the facts of that case, directed that a part of the acquired land be left for the purpose of housing for the societies. The said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution. As regards the judgment of this Court in Eros City Developers Private Ltd. (supra), therein, the petitioner was given a licence for colonisation and thereafter, the land was sought to be acquired. Contentions raised before this Court was that Section 5-A of the Act was not complied with, the petitioner had legitimate expectation, the principle of estoppel was attracted and 4 C.W.P. No.10798 of 1992 no purpose will be served. The submissions of the petitioners were upheld having regard to the fact situation therein. 13. In the present case, there was no objection under Section 5-A of the Act. There is no basis for the principles of legitimate expectation or estoppel, nor the same have been pleaded in the petition. We also do not find any ground for invoking the principle of legal malafides, which can be invoked when there is colourable exercise of power for a purpose other than that for which it is purported to have been exercised. 14. In the present case, there has been stay of dispossession for the last 17 years. When the petition was filed, it was stated that the petitioners were running nurseries and mushroom farms. It is now stated that the plants have now grown into trees. In these circumstances, this Court cannot hold the acquisition to be illegal on that ground. 15. In view of earlier judgment of this Court in other connected matters, which has attained finality, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. 16. The petition is dismissed. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that the petitioners need one month time to make alternative arrangement to remove their belongings. Learned counsel for the respondents does not object to one month time being given, as in earlier orders also one month time was given. We allow this prayer for one month time being allowed to the petitioners to remove their belongings from the acquired land. 5 C.W.P. No.10798 of 1992 18. The petition is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE February 04, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 6