IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 5094 of 1986 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 16, 2010. M/s Balwant Singh Sher Singh and others ...... Petitioners Versus. Commissioner and Secretary to Haryana Government, Urban Estate Department, Chandigarh and others. ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondents. JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). The petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer that directions be issued to the respondents not to acquire their land including construction raised thereon in view of the statement made in the written statement by the Government official in CWP No. 5410 of 1984. It was further prayer of the petitioners that direction be issued to respondent No. 4 not to pronounce the Award and also not to dis-possess them from their land. In response to the notice, separate replies have been filed. Written statement filed by Prabhu Dutt, HCS, Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana, Faridabad at Panchkula, para-21 reads thus :- “21 That the contents of para No. 21 of the writ petition are wrong, baseless and denied. It is submitted that most of the constructed area of the petitioners had been left out from acquisition as shown in map attached with the written statement. Land/construction of the petitioners and others which falls in the Green Belt with the other land of the petitioners as shown in the map had been acquired by the State on 23.9.86. Possession had already been taken and transferred to the Estate Officer, HUDA, C.W.P. No. 5094 of 1986 (O&M) -2- Karnal. In the case of Indian Discs Corporation area of Green Belt was reduced to 50’-3” due to the reasons mentioned in the above paras of the written statement. The Poultry farm, Cold- Store and residential house of Col. Shamsher Singh had been left out from acquisition as does not fall in Green Belt. Petrol Pump in the name of Janta Oil Co. had been adjusted in the lay out plan of Sector-3, Karnal. Hence, no discrimination had been made out to acquiring the land of the petitioners and releasing the others standing on the same footing. Hence, the averments made by the petitioners in this para, are highly misconceived, hence wrong and denied.” A reading of this paragraph shows that the constructed portion of land of the petitioners was left out from the acquisition and rest of the area was acquired. While making reference to para-25 of this reply, the State counsel brought to our notice that regarding acquired land, compensation was received by the petitioners. Faced with this situation, Shri Sharma, states that the present Civil Writ Petition be disposed of in terms of the averments made by respondents in para-21 of the written statement. In view of the prayer made, we dispose of the writ petition in terms of the averments made by the Land Acquisition Collector in paragraph- 21 of the written statement. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE August 16, 2010. sjks.