CWP.537 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 537of 2010 Date of decision 14 .1.2010 Zile Singh and others ... Petitioners Versus The Land Acquisition Collector and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. N.K.Malhotra ,Advocate for the petitioners 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notification dated 24.12.2007 (P.3) issued under Section of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and a declaration dated 23.12.2008 (P.4) made under Section 6 of the Act acquiring the land which include the land of the petitioners. The principal argument for attacking the acquisition is that it suffers from discrimination in as much as the area sought to be acquired by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act that belongs to respondent nos. 3 and 4 has been released whereas the adjacent area belonging to the petitioners has not been released. It is alleged that there is hostile discrimination. It is pertinent to notice that the public purpose disclosed in the notification under Section 4 of the Act is Telecom and Transport in Sector 21 A Rohtak which has to be used and developed for Haryana Urban Estate Department. After filing of objections, notification under Section 6 of the CWP.537 of 2010 2 Act has been issued on 23.12.2008. The objections filed by the petitioners disclose that the land is situated within the municipal limits of the City Rohtak and it is claimed that the market price is Rs. 1.50 lacs per acre. The petitioner has claimed higher rate of compensation keeping in view the market price. However, at the time of arguments, Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only one contention namely that the land belonging to respondent nos. 3 and 4 has been released whereas the adjacent land of the petitioners has been acquired which violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Having heard the learned counsel we are of the view that there is no general principle of law that whenever land belonging to others has been released which may be adjacent to the land of the aggrieved party then the same is to be released. The question of release of land is not a question of law and it falls within the State policy. In the case of Anand Buttons Ltd v. State of Haryana 2005(9) SCC 164, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “13. It is trite law that not only land but also structure on land can be acquired under the Act. As to whether in a given set of circumstances certain land should be exempted from acquisition only for the reason that some construction had been carried out, is a matter of policy, and not of law. If after considering all the circumstances, the State Government has taken the view that exemption of the lands of the lands of the appellants would render askew the development scheme of the industrial estate, it is not possible for the High Court or this Court to interfere with the satisfaction of the concerned CWP.537 of 2010 3 authorities. We see no ground on which the appellants could have maintained that their lands should be exempted from acquisition. Even if three of the parties had been wrongly exempted from acquisition, that gives no right to the appellants to seek similar relief.” In view of the above, the petitioner cannot claim equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even if it is accepted that wrong has been committed in some other case by the release of the land then the petitioners cannot invoke the concept of negative equality in support of their case. The petitioners have to stand on their two feet independently on some other basis. The petition does not warrant admission and accordingly the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Ajay Tewari) 14.1.2010 Judge okg