IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 5144 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 23, 2010 M/s Sindhu Education Foundation and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 5. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner, which is an educational institution, running a school has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notification dated 20.8.2007 (P-41), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), notification under Section 6 of the Act, dated 24.12.2007 (P-43) and notice under Section 9 of the Act (P-44). The land belonging to the petitioners measuring 2 Kanals 11 Marlas, comprised in Khasra Nos. 328/21 Min. (3-0), 351/1/2 (3-11), 329 (6-0), situated in the revenue estate of village Garhi Bohar, Hadbast No. 135/1, Tehsil and District C.W.P. No. 5144 of 2008 Rohtak, is sought to be acquired. The grievance made is that in respect of the aforesaid land change of land use was granted for setting up of Indus Public School-petitioner No. 3, therefore, the acquisition is illegal. The matter has come up for consideration before this Court on various dates. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 7 it is claimed that the same notification was challenged in CWP No. 4607 of 2008 (Lalit Kumar Jain and others v. State of Haryana) and the writ petition was dismissed on 10.4.2008. The land in dispute falls in Sector 27-A-B and was totally vacant but it is within school boundary wall which is used for parking of school buses at the time when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. It falls in the alignment of green belt. A perusal of the written statement further shows religious compliance with all the requirements of Section 4, hearing of objections under Section 5A and publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In a separate reply filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 6, it has been accepted that the petitioners were granted permission for change of land use on 24.1.0.2000 (P-5) for institutional purpose, namely, construction of Senior Secondary School building over an area measuring 29048.50 Sq. Yards situated in Khasra No. 328//21- P, 329//16-P, 25, 350//4/2, 5, 6/1, 6/2, 15, 351//1/2 of the revenue estate of village Garhi Bohar, Tehsil and District Rohtak. An area measuring 6737.25 Sq. Yards was excluded from change of land use as it was falling within 30 meters wide green belt along National Highway 10. Accordingly, the land falling within 30 meters along NH- 10 is being acquired for which CLU has never been granted to the petitioners. 2 C.W.P. No. 5144 of 2008 The petitioners filed replications to the written statements filed by the respondents reiterating its stand that the CLU was issued in respect of the land in question. On 24.10.2000, the CLU was issued to the petitioners and thereafter they deposited the development charges and A-Class construction with all basic amenities was raised by them. An affidavit of Shri T.C. Gupta, Director, Urban Estate Haryana, dated 22.2.2010 has also been filed. The categorical statement made in the affidavit is that the petitioners were granted CLU permission under the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (for brevity, ‘the 1963 Act’), for development of an integrated educational institution after excluding an area measuring 6737.25 Sq. Yards falling within 30 meters wide green belt along NH- 10 of the revenue estate village Garhi Bohar. According to the affidavit no CLU in respect of the area under green belt was ever granted to the petitioners because it is an important requirement for the provision of city level infrastructure for Rohtak township. There is a categorical denial that there is any error committed or discrimination made in the acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners or development of the green belt. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and find that permission for change of land use issued under the 1963 Act was issued for construction of Senior Secondary School building over an area measuring 29048.50 square yards, situated in Khasra Nos. 328//25-P, 329//16-P, 25, 350//4/2, 5, 6/1, 6/2, 15, 351//1/2, after excluding an area measuring 6737.25 square yards falling within 30 meters vide green belt along NH-10. The 3 C.W.P. No. 5144 of 2008 aforesaid permission was subject to various conditions given in para 2 of the letter dated 24.10.2000 (P-5). It is, thus, obvious from the permission granted for change of land use, dated 24.10.2000 that Khasra Nos. 328/21 Min. (3-0), 351/1/2 (3-11) and 329 (6-0), total measuring 2 Kanals 11 Marlas had never included in the CLU, the part of 30 meters wide green belt along NH-10, whereas the case the petitioners throughout have been that the area was included in the CLU. They have pleaded and re-pleaded the aforesaid issue. The acquisition of the land along side NH-10 for maintaining green belt is a legitimate public purpose and the question of discrimination or otherwise cannot be brought in. Moreover, the acquisition has already been upheld in CWP No. 4607 of 2008, decided on 10.4.2008.The petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) February 23, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4