In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P.No.8317 of 2008 Date of Decision:27-05-2008 Amar Singh ---Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and others ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of C.W.P.Nos. 8317 and 8312 of 2008 as acquisition proceedings have emanated from the same notifications. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notification dated 11.7.2006 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 16.7.2007 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner has claimed that the land in dispute was C.W.P.No.8317 of 2008 {2} purchased by him vide sale deed dated 17.3.1994 (Annexure P-1) and shop has been constructed thereon. It is appropriate to mention that the land has been acquired for the purposes of extension of Industrial Estate, Sector-3, Karnal. The total area comprised in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act is 76 acres 3 kanals 3 marlas. Eventually, declaration under Section 6 was issued for 315 bighas 4 biswas. The petitioner has claimed that some area has been released from acquisition on 16.7.2007 as is reflected in the chart Annexure P-6. In the site plan (Annexure P-8) the area which has been outlined with red colour is the acquired land and area marked with green colour has been released from acquisition whereas the land of the petitioner is shown in light blue where the figure of 3264 is available. It appears that the land of the petitioner abuts Sazida road. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length. It is appropriate to mention that when the matter came up for consideration on 16.5.2008, we have asked the petitioner to file site plan showing the site of the land of the petitioner. Accordingly, site plan depicting the site of the petitioner with light blue colour in added document Annexure P-8 has been filed. 4. Mr. Sudhir Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the area shown by 3282, which is the land of dera, has been released from acquisition and some other area marked by green colour has also been released, then, there is no reason for the respondents to decline the request of the petitioner for C.W.P.No.8317 of 2008 {3} release of his land. Learned counsel has insisted that acquisition of the land of the petitioner would result into hostile discrimination which would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 5. We have thoughtfully considered the question of hostile discrimination with regard to the land of the petitioner viz-a-viz the land which has been released. The land belonging to the petitioner abuts the road and there might be some construction. The land which is appurtenant to road could not ordinarily be adjusted under the planning. Moreover, we find that the land identified with revenue No. 3282 is far away from the road. Moreover, the land belongs to dera. The land belonging to a religious place like a dera is liable to be exempted under the policy of the State dated 26.10.2007 which has been shown to us. In the case of Anand Button v. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 164 the argument of hostile discrimination was rejected by observing as under:- “12. .......... In our view, it is unnecessary for us to enter into this controversy. Even if we assume that the three units, who were exempted, did not qualify under the standard adopted by the State Government for exemption, at the highest, it would make the exemption granted to them vulnerable. None of them was made party to the writ petitions filed before the High Court, nor was any relief claimed against them. Even assuming that the exemption granted to the said three units was C.W.P.No.8317 of 2008 {4} erroneous and illegal, Article 14 does not mandate that the appellants should be granted similar illegal and unjustified relief....” Their Lordships also placed reliance on an earlier judgment in the case of Union of India vs. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437 and approved the following para: “... It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (in short 'the Constitution') cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and C.W.P.No.8317 of 2008 {5} not by claiming negative equality.” 6. It is not possible for us to assume role of experts and opine whether the land belonging to the petitioner could be adjusted in the planning or not. It seems to us that beyond the road where the land of the petitioner is situated no parcel of land has been released from acquisition in that block. Therefore, we do not find that the ground of hostile discrimination has been substantiated. 7. The writ is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE ( SABINA ) JUDGE May 27, 2008 paramjit