In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 10005 of 2007 Date of decision: 19.5.2008 Mukesh Kumar Jain ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.V.K.Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr.J.L.Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G.Haryana. **** JUDGMENT M.M.KUMAR, J. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 29.8.2005 and 28.8.2006 (Annexures P-1 and P-3 respectively). The petitioner had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act on 19.9.2005 (Annexure P-2) by giving the address “Mukesh Kumar son of Kamlesh Chand Jain, c/o Jain Petrol Supplying Company, Old Bus Stand, Hansi. A perusal of the petition shows that the petitioner never put forth the objection that he has CWP No. 10005 of 2007 -2- raised construction on the land owned by him. It has been the stand of the respondents that there was only boundary wall in existence prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the petitioner was issued notice of hearing of his objections, which was duly pasted on the address given by him. Even the original record has been produced before us, which shows that at the address noticed above, the notice has been pasted. The petitioner was granted stay. In such like cases, where the Court has granted stay, are covered by the State policy dated 26.10.2007. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Director, Urban Estate, Haryana for consideration of release of land. The Director, Urban Estate, Haryana has reported that the construction on this land has been raised after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and that the land, for which prayer for release from acquisition has been made, can not be released on account of its requirement for integrated plan. The statement of District Town Planner, Hisar has been recorded that the land is part of 16 meters wide Final Development Plan Road. A copy of the report has been taken on record as Mark 'A' on the last date of hearing. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that the petition is without any merit and is, thus, liable to be dismissed because the petitioner has been given notice with regard to hearing of his objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The Director, Urban Estate, Haryana has made effort to release the land from acquisition but the same is stated to be covered by 16 meters wide Final Development Plan Road. Even otherwise, the plea of construction can not be accepted because construction appears to CWP No. 10005 of 2007 -3- have been raised before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act inasmuch as even no objection was raised under Section 5-A of the Act taking that plea. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) May 19, 2008 JUDGE anita