CWP No.16868 of 1990 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16868 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.4.2011 Vijay Kumar Katyal and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged notifications dated 6.12.1989 (Annexure P-1) and 27.11.1990 (Annexure P- 6) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') vide which the land measuring 46 acres 2 kanals and 11 marlas including approximately 22 acres of land belonging to the petitioners was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of New Grain Market, Staff quarters, Office building, Gadda sheds and Rest House. The present petitioners filed objections to the acquisition proceedings relating to their land measuring 22 acres as mentioned in para No.2 of the writ petition. They raised objection that temple is existing on the part of their acquired land which was surrounded by a boundary wall and used for religious purpose. Their objections were considered and recommendation was made by the Land Acquisition Collector to the State for releasing the land covered by the temple i.e. Killa No.178/1/1min, 10 min, 179/5 min, 6 min, 178/1/1, 179/3, 4/2 & 5. However, notification under CWP No.16868 of 1990 (O&M) 2 Section 6 of the Land Acquisition was issued in November 1990 including the land of the petitioners. Hence the present writ petition was filed. In the present writ petition, the petitioners are claiming the release of the land only to the extent of 4 acres on which allegedly a Pracheen Shri Krishan Mandir exists. Reliance was placed by the petitioners on the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Rohtak to the State Government for releasing the land of the petitioners as referred to above. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State, existence of the temple at the relevant time of issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was denied. In support of this, a revenue record upto the year 1987 was also produced. Replication was filed by the petitioners denying the assertions of the State and placing on record copies of Khasra Girdawaris upto October 1988 showing existence of gair mumkin temple in different khasra numbers. It is relevant to point out at this stage that the matter also remained pending before the Lok Adalat and the said Court had summoned the record and it was found that in the khasra girdawaris', entries recorded in October 1988 existence of temple stands established on the land of the petitioners and that was much prior to the date of notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act i.e. December 6, 1989. In this view of the matter, the Lok Adalat of this Court passed the following order on 5.1.2001:- “In view of what has been stated above, when existence of temple stands admitted and when recommendations were also made by the Land Acquisition Collector for releasing the land covered by the temple, there was no justification for the State to decline the objections raised by the petitioners and acquire such land of the petitioners where existed temple. Thus, while allowing CWP No.16868 of 1990 (O&M) 3 the writ petition, we direct the respondents not to acquire the land of the petitioners as referred to above, where existed temple surrounded by boundary wall. If the parties object to the proposed order as above, they may move High Court with objection petition within two months for the disposal of the writ petition on merits according to law.” On March 7, 2001, the Lok Adalat passed further order which reads thus: “After hearing counsel for the parties, we make correction in our order dated January 5, 2001. The temple existed on the land regarding which relief was granted. The particulars of the land were taken from Annexure P-4. The English translation of Annexure P-4 produced omitted Khasra No.179/4/1, whereas vernacular of Annexure P-4 existing on the record shows the existence of this khasra number. Thus, this was an omission. We correct our order aforesaid by inserting khasra No.4/1 in between Khasra Nos.179/3 and 4/2, meaning thereby the order passed on that day would also cover land of Khasra No.4/1 of Rectangle No.179.” However, vide order dated 4.5.2001 directions were issued to put up the matter on the judicial side for decision. Today, during the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has shown a photograph to this Court in support of his claim that a temple exists in the land sought to be released. However, a perusal of the photograph shows that the construction part of the temple is very small and the remaining land is just surrounded by a boundary wall and there exists no construction. On the other hand, Sh. Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed on record a site plan showing the location of the land sought to be released by the petitioners. A CWP No.16868 of 1990 (O&M) 4 perusal of the aforesaid site plan shows that the land of the petitioners falls in the 60 feet wide road and the same cannot be released. In view of the afore-stated facts established on record to the effect that the land under acquisition falls in the road alignment, this Court is satisfied that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. No other point was argued. Thus, we find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE JUDGE April 25, 2011 ps