IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.13612 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 15.07.2010 Dev Parkash ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Kamal Sehgal, Addl.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (Oral) Vide notification dated 3.8.20006 (Annexure P-2) a vast track of land including the land of the petitioner was proposed to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short 'the Act' ). The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and on conclusion of necessary formalities, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 14.7.2007 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner has also impugned the above-said notification. It is petitioner's grievance that the objections filed by him under Section 5-A of the Act were disposed of in a very casual manner. A reference was made regarding release of the land of the petitioner which was not even the subject-matter of the above-said acquisition. In response to the notice issued, reply has been filed wherein a preliminary objection has been raised that the writ petition having been filed after pronouncement of the Award, is not maintainable. Counsel for the parties have been heard. C.W.P.No.13612 of 2009 -2- The petitioner's writ petition can be dismissed in view of the preliminary objection raised because he has filed this writ petition after passing of the Award by the Collector on 14.2.2008. It has been so observed by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 and Sawaran Lata, etc. vs. State of Haryana & others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664. Besides the above-said preliminary objection, it is an admitted fact that the acquisition in dispute was also challenged by other right holders by filing separate writ petitions. Their challenge was negatived by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P.No.16834 of 2009, the writ petition was disposed of while observing as under:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would like to restrict his prayer to the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the order passed by this Court in Nirmala Devi Versus State of Haryana and others (C.W.P.No.1846 of 2008 decided on 10.09.2009). Learned counsel for the respondents state that they have no objection to the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in C.W.P.No.13612 of 2009 -3- Nirmala Devi's case (supra). In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision rendered by this Court in Nirmala Devi's case (supra).” It was observed that the claim of the petitioners therein to get oustees quota plots under acquisition policy dated 7.12.2007 be considered and the land owners shall be dispossessed from the acquired land subject to the handing over of the plots to them. It was further observed that in case petitioners' claim is rejected, then they shall vacate the property in dispute under acquisition within one week from the date of receipt of order of rejection. In view of the order passed in C.W.P.No.16834 of 2009, we dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner to get the oustees' quota plot and the petitioner shall be dispossessed from the land acquired, if not already dispossessed, after offering him possession of a plot against oustees' quota. If the petitioner's claim is going to be rejected, he be supplied a copy of the order forthwith. The petitioner shall vacate the acquired property within a week thereafter, with liberty to lay challenge to the order that may be passed. Needful be done within one month. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE July 15, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE