COCP No. 767 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … COCP No. 767 of 2009 Date of decision: July 30, 2009 Mangati Devi widow of Baso Ram ..Petitioner. Versus Depinder Singh Desi and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. P.K.Arya, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Preeti Khanna,Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. S.K.Hooda, Sr. DAG, Haryana for respondent Nos.3 and 4 .. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral) In this petition, the petitioner has alleged that despite the fact that CWP Nos. 3269 of 1990 and 9242 of 1994 were allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 29.9.1992 and 15.7.1994 respectively quashing the notifications for the land under acquisition, yet the respondents have failed to hand over the possession of the land to the petitioner and further the respondents are carrying out development activities over the land of the petitioner forcibly and thus have committed the contempt of this court. In response to the show cause notice issued by this court, reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents submitting therein that petitioner is the wife of one Baso Ram son of Ruttal son of Nanak. The aforesaid Baso Ram accepted compensation amounting to Rs.85725.86 vide cheque No. 340778 dated 13.11.1990 agaisnt the acquisition of his land. Not only this, the said land owner also accepted subsequently the amount of enhanced compensation of Rs. 87582.20. It was also pointed out in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents COCP No. 767 of 2009 2 that against the acquisition of his land comprised in khasra No. 601/1, no writ petition was been filed by the land owners; rather they accepted the amount of compensation as well as enhanced compensation willingly. It was also submitted that the respondents have not violated the orders passed by this court in the aforesaid writ petitions and the HUDA carried out development activities only on the land whose owners accepted the compensation as well as enhanced compensation and did not take back the acquired land thus waving their right to the said land voluntarily. It has been further submitted in the reply filed by the respondents that 371 land owners who had collected the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the enhanced amount of compensation had not refunded the same to the office of Land Acquisition Officer Urban Estates, Panchkula and only 18 persons had paid back the compensation in respect of land measuring 1.96 acres after the orders passed by this court quashing the acquisition proceedings. It has been also mentioned in this reply that the question of committing contempt of this court in disobedience of the orders passed by this court on 29.9.1992 in CWP No.3269 of 1990 and orders dated 15.7.1994 in CWP No.9242 of 1994 was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in COCP No. 1341 of 2007 and CWP No.7540 of 2006 and while deciding the aforesaid contempt petition and the writ petition vide judgment dated 27.2.2009, this court found that the official respondents had not committed the violation of any order passed by this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had received compensation for acquisition of his land and the same was never returned back. It is also not in dispute that petitioner or his predecessor in interest never challenged the acquisition proceeding. There is nothing on record to prove that petitioner ever raised any objection against the alleged development activities being done by the respondents on his land against his wishes. In fact, the petitioner could have exercised his right to challenge those alleged illegal activities which were being carried out on his land . Not only this, while deciding CWP No. 7540 of 2006, this COCP No. 767 of 2009 3 court had noticed that by the time, order dated 29.9.1992 was passed quashing notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act issued by the respondents a part of the land was already developed and the owners of land measuring 92 acres did not raise any objection and made no attempt to refund the amount of compensation received by them and since some of areas under the scheme were already being developed a fresh notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 2.5.2001 and an opportunity was given to the land owners to file objections. There is no averment in the petition that petitioner ever submitted objection to the fresh acquisition also. Under the above said circumstances, action of official respondents in continuing with development activities over the portion of the land cannot be treated as violation of the orders passed by this Court. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid observations of this Court in the judgment passed in CWP No.7540 of 2006 and COCP No. 134 of 2007 reads as under:- “In his writ petition, the petitioner has nowhere stated that the land owners, whose land was acquired, were not in a position to agitate their rights being poor. He has further not stated that on account of any handicap, it was not possible for them to approach this Court or any other forum for redressal of their grievances. It has come on record that when land was originally acquired, some of the land owners came to this Court, their writ petitions were allowed, however, with regard to 92 acres of land, no objections raised, the owners accepted the compensation and remained satisfied. Even after quashing of the notification issued under Section 6 and subsequent order passed by this Court, none of the land owners, with regard to above said 92 acres of land, made any attempt to refund the compensation amount already received by them. Under above said circumstances, action of the official respondents in continuing with development activities over that portion of the land, carving out and COCP No. 767 of 2009 4 allotting plots to the private respondents and others, cannot be treated as violation of the orders by this Court. Ample opportunity was available to the land owners, whose land was acquired to claim their rights inadequately or under the orders passed by this Court, as mentioned above. Once they had failed to do so, it is not open to the petitioner to lay challenge to the action of the official respondents to develop the area in question. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Rule discharged. Dismissed. July 30, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE