CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15209 OF 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 04 , 2011. Parties Name Vijay Kumar and others ...PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Haryana and another ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. Chatter Bhuj Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. S.S.Patter, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, Jasbir Singh, J. JUDGMENT Petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) on March 8, 1989, proposing to acquire a vast track of land falling in the revenue estate of villages Dhanwapur, Kadipur, Hidayatpur Cantt. and Gurgaon, for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land for residential and commercial area Sectors 9, 9-A and 10 at Gurgaon. Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on March 7, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15209 OF 1990 -2- 1990, is also under challenge in this writ petition. It is case of the petitioners that they are the owners of small plots of land, in which they had constructed their residential houses. Contrary to the Government policy, not to acquire the land with construction, despite objections raised, their houses were not kept out of acquisition. It is further stated by them that the land owned by many other land owners was released from acquisition without any justification. Upon notice, reply has been filed, wherein it is stated that this Court has dismissed many writ petitions, in which challenge had been laid to the acquisition in question. It was further averred that objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed only by petitioners No. 1,2,3 and , whereas the petitioners No. 4,5 and 6 did not file any objection. It is further stated that objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act were decided by the Land Acquisition Collector after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners / their representatives. Regarding existence of construction in the land owned by the petitioners, it was averred as under in paragraphs No. 4 and 5 of the preliminary objections: “4. That in para No. 2 of the civil writ petition all the petitioners have alleged construction over the land in dispute. Allegation of the petitioners is totally false. Fact is that there was construction only of petitioner No. 7 viz Sh. Shiv Nath Kumar over an area measuring 5 Marlas. The said construction along with proportionate vacant area measuring 5 Marlas was left out of acquisition. Thus in all an area measuring 10 marlas of the said petitioner was left out of acquisition. The remaining CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15209 OF 1990 -3- land in acquisition was completely vacant at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. A survey was conducted by the answering respondent fully in accordance with law. The relevant record shall be produced before the Hon'ble Court as and when the same is ordered. The civil writ petition filed by the petitioners merits dismissal on this ground also. 5. That the petitioners No. 1 to 6 are not the owners of the land in dispute at all. As per jamabandi of the year 1986-87 Village Gurgaon Tehsil and Distt. Gurgaon, land bearing Khasra No. 1004 is owned by Baldev Raj s/o Hans Raj, the land bearing Khasra No. 6/16 village Kadipur Teh.. & Distt. Gurgaon is owned by Sh. Prithvi Raj s/o Prabhu etc. as per jamabandi of the year 1987-88. The land bearing khasra No. 5/23/5 and 5/18/1, village Kadipur is owned by Sh. Surinder Kumar s/o Hira Lal, Smt. Roop Rani w/o Laxman Dass and Rattan Singh s/o Puran Singh as per jamabandi of the year 1987-88 village Kadipur Tehsil and Distt. Gurgaon. The details of the land alleged to be owned by petitioner No. 4 are not given by the petitioners. The answering respondent, therefore, reserves its right to make a reply at a later stage. The civil writ petition filed by the petitioners merits dismissal on this ground also. There is no land bearing Khasra No. 2/81/1 in village Kadipur the and Distt. Gurgaon, as claimed by petitioner No. 5” CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15209 OF 1990 -4- It was further stated that the land owned by Shri Ved Ram son of Shri Chhote Lal was not exempted from acquisition as alleged. Qua others, it was stated that only that land has been ordered to be released from acquisition, in which buildings were in existence. Full detail has been given in paras No. 11 to 14 of the written-statement. To controvert the averments made in the written-statement, replication has not been filed by the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as per policy of the State Government, land with construction thereon cannot be made subject matter of the acquisition. The petitioners are the small land owners. They had constructed their residential houses in the land in dispute. It was further stated that by releasing buildings/ residential houses of many other land owners, discrimination has been done with the petitioners by not providing them the same relief. It is prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned notifications, qua the petitioners, be quashed. Prayer of counsel for the petitioners has vehemently been opposed by the State counsel, who by making reference to the averments made in the written-statement, argued that at the relevant time, except the land owned by petitioner No. 7, rest of the land was lying vacant. He further argued that there is no question of discrimination with the petitioners as the land owned by many other right holders was kept out of acquisition, wherein construction was in existence when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in this case. After hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that no case is made out for interference at the instance of the petitioners. In the written- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 15209 OF 1990 -5- statement, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioners No. 4 to 6 did not file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. There is no rebuttal to the above said averment. If that is so, this writ petition at their instance is not maintainable in view of ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration vs. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3822. In the written-statement, it is further stated that the land owned by the petitioners except petitioner No. 7 was lying vacant at the relevant time. It is further mentioned that so far as petitioner No. 7 is concerned, there was construction in over 5 Marlas of land. As per policy of the State Government, 10 Marlas of land owned by petitioner No. 7 was kept out of acquisition. It is further stated that so far as other land owners, in whose case land was released from acquisition, are concerned, it was done to save the residential houses/ construction / factory. Complete detail has been given in that regard in paragraphs No. 11 to 13 of the written-statement, to controvert which no replication has been filed. If that is so, under the facts and circumstances of this case, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 04 , 2011. DKC