C.W.P.No.2803 of 1995 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 22.09.2010 C.M.No.642 of 2010 and C.W.P.No.2803 of 1995 (O&M) M/s. J.K.Lime Udyog and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) C.W.P.No.3591 of 1995 M/s. Perfect Marbles and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. Chandigarh Administration and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.G.C.Dhuriwala, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Through this common order, we propose to dispose of two civil writ petitions [C.W.P.Nos.2803 of 1995 and 3591 of 1995] as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the facility of dictation, facts are being taken from C.W.P.No.2803 of 1995. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash notice (Annexure P-3) issued under the Provisions of Punjab New Capital C.W.P.No.2803 of 1995 (O&M) -2- (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (in short 'the Act'). Heard counsel for the parties. It is apparent from record that a notice was given to the petitioners that they had raised the construction in the controlled area without getting proper permission from the authority concerned. The petitioners were cautioned as to why action be not taken against them under Section 12(2) of the Act for violating provisions of Section 5 and Section 11(1) of the Act. Time was given to the petitioners to file reply. However, without responding to the notice mentioned above, this writ petition has been filed laying challenge to the provisions of Sections 5 and 11 (1) and Section 12 (2) of the Act. At the time of arguments, nothing has been shown, on the basis of which the above said provisions can be set aside. Otherwise also, it is apparent from the record that by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short '1894 Act') on 12.11.1992, a vast track of land, including land which is subject-matter of dispute in this writ petition, was proposed to be acquired. Declaration under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 31.8.1993. Thereafter, it appears that award was also passed. The petitioners along with many other right holders put a challenge to the land acquisition proceedings. All the writ petitions were dismissed by passing a common judgment in C.W.P.No.2751 of 1993 on 2.7.1996. The order passed had become final. If that is so, State has become owner of the land in dispute in these writ petitions. Possibly under such a situation, the petitioners cannot raise any objection regarding construction raised by them. It has also come on record that because of stay order granted in this case, the authorities could not get C.W.P.No.2803 of 1995 (O&M) -3- possession from the petitioners in terms of the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings. Under the facts and circumstances of this case mentioned above, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court when writ petitions regarding acquisition proceedings were dismissed on 2.7.1996, which reads thus:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly prayed that they are being second time uprooted by this acquisition from their residential houses and therefore, they should be allotted alternative sites. A reference was made to the observations made in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Pista Devi, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 2025. In our considered view, there is no statutory provisions under which a mandamus can be issued to the respondents to allot alternative sites to the petitioners. However, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in case the authorities are satisfied that by the acquisition in question, the petitioners would be rendered homeless they would not or could not be compensated in terms of Section 23-A of the Act or the authorities in the interest of justice for rehabilitating the displaced persons may frame an appropriate scheme for rehabilitation in accordance with law, rules justice and good conscience.” There is nothing on record to show that ever the petitioners C.W.P.No.2803 of 1995 (O&M) -4- have approached the authorities concerned with a prayer for grant of some alternative relief. The petitioners, if so advised, after vacating the property in dispute may approach the authorities concerned for relief in terms of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court on 2.7.1996 when C.W.P.No.2751 of 1993 was dismissed. If any application is moved, the same be decided as early as possible, preferably within four months from its filing. No case is made out for interference by this Court. These writ petitions stand disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on record on the file of connected case. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE September 22, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE