IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12494 of 2007 Date of Decision: May 20, 2008 Prem Raj …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notification dated 5.5.1997, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 4.5.1998, issued under Section 6 of the Act (P-1 & P-3). A further prayer has also been made for quashing order dated 20.6.2006 (P-8), passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, in pursuance to the direction dated 22.7.2004, C.W.P. No. 12494 of 2007 issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1148 of 2003 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 2884 of 2002. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by challenging the acquisition proceedings by filing C.W.P. No. 4735 of 2000. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the aforementioned petition, vide order dated 19.9.2001 (P-4). The order passed by the Division Bench was challenged by the petitioner before Hon’ble the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) No. 2884 of 2002, which was later on converted into Civil Appeal No. 1148 of 2003. On 22.7.2004, Hon’ble the Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions to respondent No. 2 i.e. the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, to consider the objections of the petitioners. The aforementioned directions were issued in number of cases including Civil Appeal No. 1148 of 2003, which reads thus:- “1. The Secretary, Urban Estates department, State of Haryana is directed to consider the objections of the appellants only so far it relates to exclusion of the land to the extent occupied by the structure and appropriate open area around the structure for the beneficial enjoyment of the appellants. However, this direction shall not come in the way of the authorities in removing the structures, if required for the purposes of road, hospital and other civic amenities. 2 C.W.P. No. 12494 of 2007 2. The Secretary, Urban Estates Department shall decide not only the existence of the structures prior to 4(1) notification or subsequent, he shall also decide the extent of structure existed prior to 4(1) notification. 3. It is also open to the authorities to make adjustment or readjustment of plots for the purpose of planed development and in case it becomes necessary to give little additional area from the plots of the appellants, the appellants shall be bound to take that additional area and also be bound to pay cost of such area as is chargeable to other allottees. The appellants shall also be bound to pay the developmental charges as is charged from other allottees. It is open to the parties to place documents or material in support of their contentions. We expect that as far as possible, the respondents shall try to retain the structures, unless it becomes difficult for them to have a planed development without removing them in view of what is stated above. The above directions will be applicable only to such of the cases where the residential structures are made prior to the issuance of 4(1) notification and the appellants are actually residing there. However, in case of any dispute as to whether the structures were made prior to 4(1) notification or later, the Secretary, Urban Estates Department shall determine that question after 3 C.W.P. No. 12494 of 2007 affording opportunities to both the parties, uninfluenced by observations made in the impugned orders of the High Court. We make it clear that these directions are given on the peculiar facts of these cases and are not intended for any general application.” In pursuance of aforementioned directions, the Financial Commissioner-respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order dated 20.6.2006 (P-8), which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. Mr. Arun Jain, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has taken us through order passed by the Financial Commissioner- respondent No. 2 and has argued that the facts of some other case appears to have been read into the present case. He has pointed out that the representation made by the petitioner has not been noticed in the impugned order dated 20.6.2006 (P-8), passed by the Financial Commissioner-respondent No. 2. Mr. Jain has further submitted that the factum of construction of the residential houses has been explicitly mentioned in the representation dated 20.5.1997 (P-2), whereas the Financial Commissioner-respondent No. 2 in her order states that nothing on the record shows about the existence of the houses and also Khasra numbers mentioned in the order are different and the same do not belong to the petitioner. 4 C.W.P. No. 12494 of 2007 The aforementioned factual position pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner could not be disputed by the learned State counsel. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 20.6.2006 (P-8) in respect of the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, directions are issued to the Financial Commissioner-respondent No. 2 to reconsider the matter in accordance with the directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1148 of 2003, decided on 22.7.2004. Let the needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) May 20, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5