RSA No.7 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.7 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.1.2009 M/s S.K. Textile Industries and others ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the appellants. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.25-C of 2009 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.7 of 2009 (O&M) This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that they are entitled for the release of land in dispute with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them from the suit property, has been dismissed with costs. Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that they purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 9.1.1987 and thereafter constructed double storey factory in the premises. The defendants acquired the property in the vicinity of factory premises on 23.2.1989 by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiffs filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Civil Court. The plaintiffs were shocked to receive a notice dated 19.9.2001 whereby the respondents had threatened to get vacated the premises or dismantle the construction raised thereupon. The RSA No.7 of 2009 (O&M) 2 said notice is illegal, null and void and plaintiffs are entitled to release of their factory from acquisition. Since all the request of the plaintiffs had fallen on deaf ears, they were constrained to file the present suit. Upon notice, the defendants put in appearance and resisted the claim of the plaintiffs by raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that construction of the suit property was illegal and was liable to be removed. All other material allegations were disputed and controverted. Dismissal of the suit with costs was prayed for. After perusing the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, both the Courts below held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in this case and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal in this Court challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the appellants are entitled to release of the factory premises as they had already raised 'A' class construction on this land much before the initiation of the acquisition process by the respondents qua this land and the respondents have released the constructed land of several similarly situated persons adjoining the land of the appellants. However, the land of the appellants was not released and they were served with the notice for vacating the premises and dismantling the construction. Learned counsel has further relied upon the pleadings of the respondents in the written statement to the effect that the land of adjoining factory owners was released. On the basis of the above said argument, learned counsel has prayed for acceptance of this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. However, I find no force in the contentions raised by him. Admittedly, the land in dispute has been acquired by the defendants for a public purposes i.e. for RSA No.7 of 2009 (O&M) 3 the development and the utilization of the same as residential, commercial and industrial use. The said land vested in the respondents free from all encumbrances on passing of the award Ex.D4. The compensation regarding the acquired land along with other benefits have already been deposited by the respondents. It is well settled that validity or legality of acquisition proceedings cannot be gone into on passing of the award. In the present case, the appellants have not challenged the acquisition proceedings and the same have become final. The only claim of the appellants is with regard to the release of suit land on the ground that land of similarly situated persons has been released and they are also entitled for release of their land as there already exists 'A' class construction and as per the policy of the State of Haryana, the appellants are entitled to the release of their land from acquisition. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is misconceived. There is no evidence on record to prove the fact that the alleged construction of the appellants is of 'A' class and the same is liable to be released. Even the policy of the State of Haryana under which release is sought has not been placed on record. The question whether the construction exists prior to the acquisition or was made after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is a question of fact and the same has been answered against the appellants by the Courts below. The appellants have failed to prove that they had constructed their factory prior to acquisition of suit property and that they are entitled to release of their land from acquisition. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. January 6, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.7 of 2009 (O&M) 4 RSA No.7 of 2009 (O&M) 5