Civil Writ Petition No.2021 of 2011(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2021 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision: 04.03.2011 Sunil Kumar & Ors. ....petitioners Versus State of Punjab & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUAMR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General,Punjab *** JASBIR SINGH, J.(ORAL): Replication has been filed in the Court and is taken on record. Civil Misc.application stands disposed of. Civil Writ Petition No.2021 of 2011 This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to lay challenge to a notification dated 26.08.2009(P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(in short 'the Act') proposing to acquire Civil Writ Petition No.2021 of 2011(O & M) 2 386.53 acres of land including 39.65 acres of land situated in village Singhpura for a public purpose namely 200 feet wide road (11 KM)from National Highway No.64 to Panchkula, Sector 21. Further challenge has been made to a declaration issued on 24.08.2010 under Section 6 of the Act finally deciding to acquire 156.8018 acres of land including 17.4791 acres of land situated in village Singhpura. Petitioners are the owners of land measuring about 3 bighas. When notice of motion was issued claiming discrimination in releasing the land of others falling in the road alignment, counsel for the petitioners contended as under: “It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that some land falling in the road alignment has been kept out of acquisition, whereas similar relief has not been granted to the petitioners.” Taking note of the same, notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed at the instance of respondent No.3 i.e. Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Development, Punjab, 5th Floor, PUDA Bhawan, SAS Nagar, Mohali. In para No.6 following facts have been stated: “That accordingly, a notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 24.08.2010 vide No.6/18/2009/6HGI/2759 exempting the Khasra No.699 as this Khasra number has already been acquired by the PWD Department, Punjab and the same is falling already in the Chandigarh-Ambala main road. Other alleged Khasra numbers i.e.710, 733 and 747 were not included in the notification issued under Section-6 of the Act because the same were not falling in the middle of proposed road rather these Khasra numbers were located outside from the said proposed road. However, the Khasra number 698 relating to the petitioners was needed due to construction of a roundabout on Chandigarh-Ambala road and Civil Writ Petition No.2021 of 2011(O & M) 3 slip roads were to be constructed to give free flow of transportation on the proposed road so same was included in the notification issued under Section-6 of the Act. It is further submitted that alignment of the road has not been changed along with these Khasra Numbers as alleged by the petitioners. So the allegations raised by the petitioners in this regard is totally baseless and utopia.” It is specifically mentioned in the affidavit that alignment of the road was never shifted as alleged by the petitioners and it is further stated that the land falling in khasra No.698 owned by the petitioners is needed to construct a roundabout at Chandigarh-Ambala road and a slip road. It was specifically averred that land falling in khasra No.710, 733 and 747 were not included in the declaration because that was falling away from the road alignment. The road is going to be carved out as per the sanctioned master plan. Be that as it may, in para No.3, it is further stated as under: “That objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were called for and same were fixed for hearing on 26.11.2009 in the office of the deponent. It is further submitted that in response to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 48 persons who were owners of the acquired land had filed objections under Section 5-A of the act, which were duly considered by the answering respondent and sent to the Respondent No.1 for its final decision. And accordingly, after taking into consideration the report of the deponent, the Respondent No.1 has rejected the objections vide order dated 17.02.2010. A translated copy of the recommendations dated 30.11.2009 and order dated 17.02.2010 are annexed herewith marked Civil Writ Petition No.2021 of 2011(O & M) 4 as Annexure R/3/1.” It was specifically stated that when opportunity granted, the petitioners failed to file the objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Confronted with the situation, counsel for the petitioners draw our attention to the averment made in para No.10(b) of the petition, wherein it was stated that on 25th September,2009, the objections were filed in the Office of Land Acquisition Collector at Dera Bassi through an Advocate. It is also brought to our notice that brother of one of the petitioners is also a legal professional. We feel that explanation given is not acceptable. The petitioners were supposed to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Development Authority, Punjab at Mohali. In the notification Annexure P-1 dated 26.08.2009, it was specifically mentioned as under: “Any person interested in and having any objection to the acquisition of any land in the said locality may within thirty days of the publication of notification, file an objection in writing before the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Development, Punjab, 5th Floor, PUDA Bhawan, Sector-62, SAS Nagar(Mohali), Tehsil and District SAS Nagar. It was made very clear that any landowner objecting to the proposed land acquisition may file objections under Section 5-A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Development, Punjab, 5th Floor, PUDA Bhawan, Sector-62, SAS Nagar(Mohali), Tehsil and District SAS Nagar. Petitioners went to a wrong officer by filing their objections. It appears that these objections were created after the date of limitation. If the petitioners were ready with the objections they could have filed before the competent authority as per the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Once, it has come on record that the petitioners have not filed the Civil Writ Petition No.2021 of 2011(O & M) 5 objections under Section 5-A , in terms of the ratio of the judgment in the case of AIR 1999 SC 3822 Delhi Admn.vs.Gurdip Singh Uban, this writ petition is not maintainable. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 04.03.2011 neenu