IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7186 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.10.2010 Darshan Lal and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Gurdev Singh Present: Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana Mr.A.K.Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr.G.S. Sullar, Advocate Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Additional affidavit of Mr.O.P. Verma, District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sirsa filed in Court is taken on record. This order will dispose of three writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.4995, 7186 and 8531 of 2010, involving similar questions of law and facts. For the purpose of dictating order, facts are being mentioned from CWP No.7186 of 2010. This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to a notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 22.3.2010 (P6), ordering acquisition of 45 acres of land for a public purpose, namely, for construction of 3rd Water Works (Jalghar) Civil Writ Petition No.7186 of 2010 near to Sirsa city. Challenge is also to the subsequent acquisition proceedings. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court on 23.4.2010:- “Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, while referring to the site plans (Annexure P-1) argued that whereas area belonging to the respondents, depicted in Pink Colour, has been released and the land belonging to the petitioners, shown in Yellow Colour, has been acquired. He has further submitted that on the other side of Rori Branch a large chunk of land belonging to the respondents has been left out from the acquisition which amounts to hostile discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” It was specific contention of counsel for the petitioners that land of the petitioners has arbitrarily been acquired whereas adjoining land of respondent Nos.3 to 7 was left out of acquisition. It was further contention of counsel for the petitioners that the land situated on other side of Rori Branch Canal has been left out of acquisition without any justification. After issuance of notice, reply was filed by the respondents, wherein, justification has been given to acquire the land in question. Counsel for the parties heard. On the last date, at the time of hearing Mr.Sidhu has vehemently contended that before deciding objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act, no opportunity of hearing was given to them. Taking note of the same, on 6.10.2010, we passed the following order:- 2 Civil Writ Petition No.7186 of 2010 “Reply on behalf of respondent No.2 has been filed in Court, the same is taken on record. It is primary contention of the counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions that before making a report, their objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were not decided and they were not heard. Record of the Collector be produced for perusal of this Court. Adjourned to 11.10.2010. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.” When record was not produced on 11.10.2010, the District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector was directed to come present in Court along with the record today, he is present in Court. It is main contention of Mr.Sidhu that before passing an order on objections of the petitioners filed under Section 5-A of the Act, they were not heard. We have perused the record, which shows that before deciding objections filed by the land owners, to the proposed acquisition, the Land Acquisition Collector, vide letter dated 20.10.2009, directed the Tehsildar, Sirsa to intimate the land owners, whose names were mentioned in that letter (including the petitioners) to appear before him on 30.10.2009 for hearing of their objections. The Tehsildar accordingly got the date noted from the land owners through Chowkidar of the village on 29.10.2009. Perusal thereof indicates that the intimation letter was signed by Om Parkash and Darshan Lal, the petitioners in this writ petition. This fact has been disputed by Mr.Sidhu. Letter dated 23.11.2009, written by the Land 3 Civil Writ Petition No.7186 of 2010 Acquisition Collector to the Financial Commissioner indicates that the petitioners were heard on 30.10.2009. We have seen the order passed on objections of the petitioners. The report made by the Land Acquisition Collector indicates that their land was vacant/ agricultural land, which fact has not been disputed by any of the parties. Accordingly, it was ordered that this land needs to be acquired. On perusal of the documents on record, we are of the opinion that sufficient hearing was given to the petitioners before deciding their objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Next contention of Mr.Sidhu is that discrimination was done with the petitioners when acquiring their land. To say so on the first date of hearing, Mr.Sidhu stated that land of respondent Nos.3 to 7 was left out of acquisition, whereas land of the petitioners has been ordered to be acquired. We have seen the reply filed by the official respondents, which indicates that out of 45 acres of land, which was subject matter of acquisition, 22 acres of land belongs to the respondent Nos.3 to 7. It is also an admitted fact that subsequent to the issuance of impugned notification, another notification was issued for extension of the water works, in which 85 acres of land was ordered to be acquired and out of which, 36 acres of land belongs to respondent Nos.3 to 7. If that is so, we fail to understand as to how any discrimination has been done with the petitioners. Next contention of Mr.Sidhu is that the proposed acquisition of land for the water works was not suitable. We are of the opinion that we cannot comment upon such like matters. The authorities are the best judge to select land for establishment of any public purpose. Admittedly, land falls in between the two canals. In reply filed, it has been stated that existence of the canals will be conducive to get supply for the water works in future. We are satisfied with the explanation given. 4 Civil Writ Petition No.7186 of 2010 So far as CWP No.8531 of 2010 is concerned, it is an admitted fact that during pendency of this writ petition, the petitioners therein have accepted the compensation amount for their land. In view of above, the writ petition at the instance of the petitioners, cannot be entertained. Otherwise also, the petitioners in that writ petition are the respondents in CWP No.7186 of 2010 and they have failed to show any illegality in acquiring their land. In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions stand dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 13.10.2010 (Gurdev Singh) gk Judge 5