IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7558 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.04.2011 Ram Kishore Aggarwal and another …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 3.7.1995 (P3), proposing to acquire 132.92 acres of land, for a public purpose, namely, ‘for the development and utilization of land as commercial, institutional, recreational and residential purposes in conformity with the development plan for Sector 20-A, Faridabad’. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act on 2.7.1996 (P4), finally ordering acquisition of the above said land. It is not in dispute that qua the land, mentioned above, an award was passed on 29.6.1998. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that the above said notifications were challenged by some of the right holders, by filing several writ petitions and vide an order passed in CWP No.13660 of 1998, the land CWP No.7558 of 2011 acquisition proceedings qua the petitioners in those writ petitions were quashed by a Division Bench of this Court on 11.5.1999. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that if on account of a defect in publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, it was bad qua those land owners, it be declared as such, qua the petitioners as well. It is further averred by the petitioners that the land owned by the petitioners was in fact left out of acquisition in consequent to an order passed by this Court, as referred to above. Thereafter, to acquire that very land again, a notification was issued by the authorities on 12.6.2000. The petitioners filed objections under section 5-A of the Act. When not decided, they came to this Court by filing CWP No.9025 of 2001, which was disposed of by this Court by passing the following order on 29.6.2001:- “We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance, have gone through the record of this case. The grouse of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have filed objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) but they have not been heard in the objections. We dispose of this writ petition by issuing a direction to the respondents to hear the petitioners in response to their objections under Section 5A of the Act, if they have not been heard earlier and for a period of 15 days or till they are heard, they shall not be dispossessed and their premises shall not be demolished.” It is case of the petitioners that even thereafter, no order has been passed on objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the 2 CWP No.7558 of 2011 Act. It is further stated by the petitioners that now after moving an application, under The Right to Information Act, 2005, the authorities have informed the petitioners that the land owned by them was not subject matter of the notifications issued in the year 2000, in fact their land was acquired, way back, in the year 1995-96. By stating that the petitioners are in possession of the land in dispute, a prayer has been made to quash the above said notification. We feel that in view of facts of this case, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. When originally, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 3.7.1995, despite an opportunity available, the petitioners failed to file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. Contention of counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners never came to know about the publication of those notifications, is not acceptable because those notifications, after publication were under challenge before this Court by many right holders by filing the writ petitions, which were allowed in their favour vide order dated 11.5.1999. In the meantime, an award was also passed in the year 1998. No explanation has been given as to why the petitioners failed to notice the publication of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in the year 1995-96. The very act of the petitioners in coming to this Court when second notification was issued in the year 2000, (in which, their land was not made subject matter of the acquisition), clearly indicates that the petitioners are residing in the near vicinity of the land under acquisition, it is not expected that they will not come to know about the notification issued earlier. In the year 2001, this Court gave an opportunity to the petitioners to get their objections, filed under Section 5-A of the Act, decided from the competent authority. Even thereafter, they did nothing, kept on sleeping 3 CWP No.7558 of 2011 and never approached the authority concerned to know about the fate of their case. They initiated the process only in the year 2010 by moving an application to get information regarding acquisition of their land. It is also apparent from the records that Mr.Ashish Mittal-petitioner No.2 became owner of the land in dispute only in the year 2009. If that is so, he cannot lay challenge to the notifications, which had become final in the year 1998. Petitioner No.1, on account of his conduct, is not entitled to get any relief. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 29.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4