Civil Writ Petition No.18001 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.18001 of 2009 Date of Decision:-November 25,2009 Gurdev Singh and M/s Kapil Poultry Breeding Farm ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioners. ---- Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the land acquisition proceedings and impugned order (Annexure P20) passed by respondent No.3. The brief facts, relevant for disposal of present writ petition and emanating from the record, are that in pursuance of notification dated 23.8.2007 (Annexure P1) under section 4 and notification dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P2) issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”), the State of Haryana sought to acquire the land of the Civil Writ Petition No.18001 of 2009 2 petitioners measuring 37 kanals 19 marlas alongwith other land mentioned therein situated in the area of village Singpura,Tehsil Safidon, District Jind, at public expense for public purpose, namely, for the development of residential and commercial Sector-7, Safidon, by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. According to the petitioners, a poultry farm/hatchery is existing since 1991 on their acquired land and this fact was apprised to the authorities by way of the objections under section 5-A of the Act. Although the Land Acquisition Collector has exempted the land under the house of the petitioners from acquisition, but their remaining land including the Poultry Farm was included in the notification under section 6 of the Act and was acquired. They have earlier challenged the acquisition proceedings and filed CWP No.20700 of 2008, which was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition after tendering all the relevant documents. Sequelly, other writ petition i.e. CWP No.8372 of 2009 filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.5.2009 (Annexure P21), which is as under:- “The petitioners rely upon policy of the State, providing for release of land of constructed area of running business. The petitioners have, however, not approached the Government by invoking the said course so far nor any reason shown why alternative remedy has not been first availed. Dismissed. However, this will not debar the petitioners from availing alternative remedy. Civil Writ Petition No.18001 of 2009 3 If any representation is made, the concerned authority may pass a speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Thereafter, the representation of the petitioners for release of their remaining land was considered and dismissed by the Director, Urban Estates Department, Haryana vide order dated 9.9.2009 (Annexure P20). The petitioners have again challenged the notifications (Annexures P1 & P2) and order dated 9.9.2009 (Annexure P20) rejecting their representation, in the present third writ petition, being illegal and arbitrary. Thus, it would be seen that in pursuance of order of this Court (Annexure P21), the representation filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the appropriate authority vide impugned order (Annexure P20). The operative part of the impugned order (Annexure P20) is reproduced as under:- “The representation has been examined. Land of the applicants falls in sector-7, Safidon which is a Residential sector as per the draft Development Plan-2021 for Safidon Controlled area prepared under the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 5 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, which was notified in the State Gazette on 16th March, 2007. A tentative layout plan of the sector has been prepared by District Town Planner, Jind (Drg. No.DTP (J) 1209/2009 dated 20.07.2009) as Civil Writ Petition No.18001 of 2009 4 per which the land of applicants adversely affects the planning/provision of 75 mtrs wide peripheral road, Green Belt and the area earmarked for Shopping Centre as per Development plan, besides 10 plots each of 14 Marla & 10 Marla category. Objections filed by the applicant No.1 have been duly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar, who after site inspection has recommended exemption of the residential house of the applicant from acquisition and has further recommended that the remaining land, Poultry farm and godown may be acquired. Poultry Farming is a non conforming activity in a residential sector, which can be a health hazard for the residents of the sector due to its associated problems of stench and flies. Such an activity is permitted only in the Agriculture Zone of the Draft Development Plan. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the recommendations of the Land Acquisition Officer or the Joint Site Inspection Committee. The issue raised by applicants with regard to planning of the acquired area not being feasible is also devoid of any merit, since a tentative layout plan of the area has already been prepared. Since the objections raised by applicants against acquisition of their land have been considered already and built up house of applicant exempted from acquisition as per policy, no further Civil Writ Petition No.18001 of 2009 5 release of land is feasible for the reasons stated above.” The learned counsel argued that since the residential house of petitioner No.1 has already been released from acquisition, therefore, their remaining land including poultry farm/hatchery also ought to have been released. We cannot accept this argument because land in question has been acquired for development of residential Sector 7, Safidon and if the claim of the petitioners is accepted, then it will adversely affect the planning provision, such as, peripheral road, green belt and the area earmarked for shopping centre and residential sector as per development plan. Moreover, poultry farm/hatchery is a non conforming activity in a residential sector, which would be a great health hazard for the residents of the area. Therefore, the land of the petitioners under poultry farm/hatchery cannot possibly be released. Further, the petitioners have also utterly failed to substantiate the other ground of discrimination. There is no material on the record which indicated that the action of the respondents is arbitrary or illegal requiring any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly when there is no specific allegation of malafide. Above being the position on record and thus seen from any angle, we are of the considered opinion that no fault can be found and the acquisition proceedings deserve to be and hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Civil Writ Petition No.18001 of 2009 6 In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. Dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 25.11.2009 (Satish Kumar Mittal) AS Judge Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No