IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1470 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.1.2011 The Defence Personnel Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner Society has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash an order dated 16.2.2009(P12), vide which, representation of the petitioner, moved under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), to release its land from acquisition, was rejected. It is apparent from the records that to acquire a vast tract of land, including land of the petitioner measuring about 13 acres, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17.4.2002. Objections filed by the petitioner did not find favour with the Land Acquisition Collector. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.4.2003. The petitioner filed CWP No.4224 of 2004, impugning the above said notifications, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2007 (P9). In that order, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner gave up its challenge to the acquisition proceedings. It was also opined that Civil Writ Petition No.1470 of 2011 land of the Cooperative Society can be acquired for a public purpose. However, taking note of a fact that the Society has been floated to provide houses to the ex-servicemen, direction was issued that the Society may move an application under Section 48 of the Act, for release of its land from acquisition. Accordingly, a representation was moved, however, the same was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 16.2.2009. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “As per the report of district Town Planner, Jhajjar, the Layout Plan of Sector 10, Bahadurgarh was approved on 30.3.2006. The land of the petitioner Society is affecting sector roads 83 plots of different sizes (3 marla to 14 marla category), site of shopping centre, Nursing Home Clinic, Dispensary and religious Building 15 plots of Sector 11 are also affected. It is very significant to note that neither in the writ petition filed before the Hon’ble Court nor in the representation submitted to Government, the petitioner revealed that the Society was also having land in Sector 5, Bahadurgarh over which they have raised a plotted colony in an unauthorized manner, for which complaints were sent to the police by the Town and Country Planning Department of violation of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act 1975 as well as the Punjab Scheduled Roads and controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act 1963. It is a different matter that in 2004, this colony by the name of Sainik Nagar has been regularized by the Urban Local Bodies Department. It is also an admitted fact that as of 2 Civil Writ Petition No.1470 of 2011 today the Government does not have any policy under which licence can be granted to a cooperative House Building Society for development of a plotted colony. In this background, the land belonging to Defence Personnel Cooperative Housing Society Limited located in Sector 10-11, Bahadurgarh does not qualify to be considered for release under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act.” Not only as above, it was also noted by the authority concerned that this Society had earlier constructed an unauthorized colony in an area measuring 25 acres, which was subsequently regularized. That fact was not mentioned when earlier writ petition was filed. We feel that had the said fact been mentioned, probably, innocuous directions would not have been issued by this Court vide order dated 22.11.2007. It is apparent from the records that if land owned by the Society is left out of acquisition, probably, it will make the entire scheme un-viable. It has been found as a matter of fact that land owned by the petitioner if left out from acquisition, it will affect sector roads, 83 plots of different sizes, shopping centre, nursing home, clinic and dispensary etc. It has also come on record that as per changed norms, even if the land is released from acquisition, the petitioner Society will not be in a position to get permission to develop a colony. In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 27.01.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3 Civil Writ Petition No.1470 of 2011 4