CWP No. 17520 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 17520 of 2006 Date of decision 29 .4.2008 Barmalt (India) Pvt. Ltd. ...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, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG Haryana. M.M.KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notification dated 24.8.2005 ( Annexure P.8) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration dated 5.6.2006 ( Annexure P.9) issued under Section 6 of the Act. A further prayer has also been made for quashing notice dated 20.10.2006 (Annexure P.10) issued under Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner has claimed that it is running its business of manufacturing of malt and malt extract for the last over 30 years and they are owner in possession of some area which they have obtained in exchange by registered exchange deed dated 19.7.1969 ( Annexure P.2). It has been asserted that on an earlier occasion the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired. However, an agreement was executed between the petitioner- company and the Governor of Haryana for release of the land on 17.1.1985. CWP No. 17520 of 2006 2 The State Government had left out the area from the purview of acquisition. Even a suit was filed which was decreed on 9.8.2004 (Annexure P.7) whereby a decree of permanent injunction has been passed in favour of the petitioner restraining the defendants or their associates from digging, carving of plots, raising construction, blocking or obstructing in any manner the passage comprised in Rectangle No. 38 killa No. 22/2 (0-1) and Rectangle no. 52, Killa No. 2/2 (1-2) situated in the revenue estate of village Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. However, total area of 1 kanal 3 marlas which is passage to the petitioner's factory has been acquired by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act on 24.8.2005 ( Annexure P.8) and notification under Section 6 dated 5.6.2006 ( Annexure P.9) of the Act. The petitioner has the grievance that there is no access left to the factory premises of the petitioner. When the matter came up for consideration on 22.4.2008, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 (HUDA) had stated that 10 meter wide road for ingress and outgress of the petitioner has now been provided. An affidavit dated 19.4.2008 alongwith the site plan Annexure R/2/1 was also filed and copy of the same was furnished to the counsel for the petitioner. At the resumed hearing today, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed two documents with Civil Misc. application No. 8349 of 2008. The first document is memo dated 1.8.1996 ( Annexure P.14) which is an inter departmental correspondence between the District Town Planner, Gurgaon and the Chief Town Planner, HUDA Panchkula. Likewise, the other letter has been sent by Estate Officer,HUDA, Gurgaon to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Chandigarh on 28.11.1987 ( Annexure P.15). The correspondence shows some planning with regard to development in the CWP No. 17520 of 2006 3 area and the vicinity belonging to the petitioner. As the correspondence is 12 and 20 years old respectively we do not wish to make any observation on that correspondence because thereafter a number of things have changed and even the land of the petitioner has been acquired which ultimately resulted into furnishing of 10 meter wide passage to the petitioner, which is reflected in the site plan Annexure R/2/1 with green colour. The basic grievance of the petitioner has been redressed by providing a 10 meter wide passage to it which may be used for passing of their goods vehicles including trucks. As a sequel to the above discussion, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. However, we make it clear that if the petitioner wishes to pursue the matter any further in the light of inter-departmental communications Annexures P.14 and P.15 then it shall be at liberty to do so. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 29.4.2008 Judge okg