CWP No. 22351 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22351 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 12, 2011 Zonex Estates Private Limited and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioners 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution reveals a strange phenomena where three sister- concerns have already lost litigation in this Court as well as before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in which prayer was made for quashing the proceedings for acquisition of their land. They filed CWP No. 3554 of 2006 and the learned Single Judge dismissed the same on 16.04.2009. A copy of the judgment in the case of the petitioner has been placed on record as Annexure P-7. Even the Letters Patent Appeal No. 114 of 2010 was dismissed on 01.02.2010. CWP No. 22351 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 2. It has come on record that the petitioners had purchased the land on 16.08.2005, whereas notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') was issued on 17.09.2004. It appeared that the petitioners entered into an agreement with the original owners. The Letters Patent Bench held that after proceedings for acquisition of land were initiated, the purchaser would acquire the right to get compensation and he would have no right to question the acquisition. The Division Bench placed reliance on a number of judgments including the judgment rendered in the cases of Meera Sahni v. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and others (2008) 9 SCC 177 and U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (1996) 3 SCC 124. Rejecting all the arguments raised by the petitioners, the Letters Patent Bench held that there was no ground to interfere in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 01.02.2010 (P-8). Even the SLP against the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 13.12.2010 (P-9). 3. Against judgment dated 16.04.2009, the State of Haryana-respondents also filed a number of Letters Patent Appeals. In their appeals, the proceedings initiated while issuing notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act, were upheld by granting opportunity to the land owners to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act but the proceedings after issuance of notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act, were quashed, on the ground that the objections under Section 5-A of the CWP No. 22351 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Act were permitted to be filed by those land owners who were party to the appeal, filed by the State of Haryana. A fresh cause of action has now been claimed by the petitioners, firstly, by arguing that they are also entitled to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act and secondly, notification under Section 6 of the Act having not been issued, the whole acquisition has lapsed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at a considerable length and are of the view that the acquisition proceedings in the case of the petitioners have been upheld by judgment dated 16.04.2009 (P-7) and the appeal was dismissed on 01.02.2010 (P-8). Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the acquisition proceedings qua them have attained finality particularly when Special Leave Petition has also been dismissed on 13.02.2009 (P-9). There is no possibility of granting any opportunity to the petitioners to file objections under Section5-A of the Act even by extending the period granted by the Letters Patent Bench in the State appeals filed by State of Haryana because the petitioners have no right to challenge the acquisition proceedings as they have acquired properitory rights in the land on 16.08.2005 much after the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.09.2004. The other arguments that the petitioners would be entitled to seek a declaration that the acquisition has lapsed on the ground that no declaration has been made under Section 6 of the Act, would also not require any detail consideration because in the case of the CWP No. 22351 of 2011 (O&M) -4- petitioners the acquisition along with the urgency clauses have been upheld by the Letters Patent Bench (P-9) and even the SLP has been dismissed. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere as the rights of the parties have already attained finality. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 12, 2011 Atul