Civil Writ Petition No. 9722 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9722 of 1988 Date of decision:28th July, 2011 Basant Ram and others .......Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl.A.G.Haryana for the respondent-State. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) The petitioners who are 37 in number have filed this writ petition with the following prayer:- “In view of the above submissions a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to cancel the impugned notification for acquiring this land or in the alternative to immediately carve out a crusher zone in the area for allotment of alternative sites to the petitioners to enable them to set up their units and till Civil Writ Petition No. 9722 of 1988 2 then not to eject from their present places of business after the acquisition proceedings are completed.” It is submitted by the petitioners that they are the tenants over the land, which has been ordered to be acquired by issuing a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') on 26.08.1988. As per facts on record, vide that notification a vast track of land was ordered to be acquired for a public purpose namely to utilise the land for recreational and commercial centres in Sector 3, Panchkula. It is stated by the petitioners that they were engaged in the business of Manual Stone breaking/Bajri Screening etc. on the land under acquisition for the last more than 15 to 20 years and were earning livelihood by doing the said work, if acquired, they will loose their livelihood. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners are not the owners of land in dispute. The quashing of the notification is prayed by claiming tenancy rights in the land in question, however, without impleading any one of the owners as a party to this writ petition. In the reply filed, it is specifically stated that in the revenue record, the alleged status of the petitioners as tenants is not reflected. It is further said that if the petitioners are allowed to continue with their activities as stated above, it will cause pollution in a residential area. Relevant averment made in the written statement reads thus:- “ 1 to 5 xxxxx 6. That in reply to para No. 6 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the stone crushers are a pollution hazard in the planned development of Urban Estate of Panchkula. It is situated in the immediate Civil Writ Petition No. 9722 of 1988 3 vicinity of Sector-2, Urban Estate, Panchkula. Throughout day and night the stone crushers pollute the residential area with stone dust which is highly injurious to health. It is also submitted that this causes a lot of air pollution and the existence of stone crushers is not in the interests of residents of Sector 2. 7 to 9 xxxxx 10. As stated earlier in paragraph 6, the stone crushers are a big hindrance in the planned development of Panchkula town because throughout day and night stone dust causes a lot of air pollution and also a traffic hazard to traffic on National Highway. As such it is necessary to shift these stone crushers in public interest as well as for the health and safety of citizens. As per the master plan, Sectror 3, has been reserved for recreational and commercial purposes and thus it was necessary to acquire this land and remove these stone crushers immediately from there.” At the time of arguments also, the petitioners have failed to show any right of tenancy. The owners may have received the compensation or if the petitioners have any grievance they may claim their share, out of the compensation amount, as per the provisions of the Act. In the replication, it is stated by the petitioners that most of them were granted compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector when award was passed and they had receipts in their possession to show that they were the tenants. However, nothing was placed on record in that regard. Civil Writ Petition No. 9722 of 1988 4 In view of the above, no ground is made out to interfere. Dismissed. [JASBIR SINGH] JUDGE [AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH] JUDGE 28th July, 2011 Shivani Kaushik