IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3970 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 23.03.2011 Dev Dutt and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.4140-4141 of 2011 Applications allowed, documents annexed with it are taken on record. CWP No.3970 of 2011 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 12.12.2008(P3), proposing to acquire 200 acres of land, including 91.19 acres of land situated in village Badshapur, of which, the petitioners are residents, for a public purpose, namely, ‘to develop and utilize the land for commercial belt along southern peripheral road in Sector 62, 65 and 66, Gurgaon. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act on 11.12.2009(P4). Still further, a prayer has been made to quash a licence No.165 of 2008 granted in favour of respondent No.3, to develop a colony. Civil Writ Petition No.3970 of 2011 In this writ petition, it is stated that land owned by the petitioners falling in khasra No.23//15/1/1 (2-4) was wrongly included in the above said notifications, for acquisition, at the instance of respondent No.3. It is case of the petitioners that as per revenue record, khasra No.15/1/1 and khasra No.15/1/2 were partitioned as per position shown in the site plan/ Aks-Shajra (Annexure P6), whereas, by doing some manipulation in the revenue record, the licence was got issued in favour of respondent No.3, by showing position of land falling in khasra No.15/1/2 as shown in site map Annexure P5. It is an admitted fact that when an opportunity was given, the petitioners failed to file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act to the proposed acquisition. It is also a case of the petitioners that they were not aggrieved by the acquisition, however, when they came to know about the above said manipulation, only then, they had laid challenge to the acquisition in question. In the writ petition, following relevant prayers have been made by the petitioners:- “(d) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing notifications dated 12.12.2008 (Annexure P3) and 11.12.2009 (Annexure P4) so far as land of the petitioners is concerned; (e) issue a further writ quashing licence No.165 of 2008 granted in favour of respondent No.3 & 4;” It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners have filed a Civil Suit, which is pending. Averments made in paragraph No.12 of the writ petition are as under:- 2 Civil Writ Petition No.3970 of 2011 “12. That after coming to know about the whole manipulation, as mentioned above, the petitioners had filed a civil suit seeking declaration that the licence obtained by the defendants No.3 & 4 involving any part of land comprised in Killa No.15/1/1 on the basis of false, fabricated and fraudulent Aks Shijra with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioners in the said Killa number. However, since the notifications issued under Land Acquisition Act which in the present case are apparently malafide cannot be challenged in the civil court, the petitioners are filing the present writ petition for quashing the notifications under section 4 and 6 (Annexure P-3) and P-4). The above said suit filed by the present petitioners is, however, pending in the Court of Ms.Archna Yadav, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurgaon and is fixed for 22.3.2011.” So far as grievance of the petitioners against respondent No.3 that it had got a licence by making manipulation in the revenue record is concerned, that can be redressed in the pending suit. The petitioners’ challenge to the acquisition cannot be entertained because the petitioners failed to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. As per averments made in the writ petition also, it is clear that the petitioners were satisfied with the acquisition but are aggrieved for grant of licence to respondent No.3 on wrong averments made by it. In terms of the ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, AIR 1999 SC 3822, this writ petition is not maintainable. On 9.3.2011, following order was passed by this Court:- 3 Civil Writ Petition No.3970 of 2011 “Counsel for the petitioners wishes to put on record a copy of the plaint and order passed on their application, seeking interim injunction, by the trial Court or by the appellate Court, if any. He also wishes to put on record information as to whether land lying on left side of the land owned by the petitioners is also a licenced area. On request, adjourned to 23.3.2011.” In response thereto, by moving an application, various documents have been put on record, including orders passed by the Civil Court from time to time. It is apparent that the petitioners had applied for grant of interim stay in the pending suit, no order has been passed regarding that prayer and the application is still pending. Mater continued to be adjourned on many dates. It appears that with a view to get a stay order passed, this writ petition has been filed. The State of Haryana is also a party in the above said suit. The petitioners may get their grievance redressed in that pending suit if any. If so advised, they may also amend their suit as per requirement of law. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 23.03.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4