IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1482 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION : 11.12.2009 Balraj .... PETITIONER Versus The State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notifications dated 21.3.1991 (Annexure P-2) and 18.3.1992 (Annexure P-4), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Vide these notifications, the State of Haryana had acquired 441.45 acres of land for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization as residential in Sector 16 and pars of Sectors 11, 13, 15 and 17 of Hisar. In para 3 of the petition, it has been stated by the petitioner that he is owner in possession of 147 kanals 12 marlas of land, situated in Hisar, CWP No. 1482 of 1994 -2- the particulars of which have been given in the said para. It is further stated that out of this land, in the land bearing rectangle No. 262, khasra Nos. 26, 29, 17/2 and 24/1, the petitioner has constructed a residential house and cow shed, and these constructions were A-Class constructions. On the basis of the aforesaid alleged construction, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the acquisition qua the aforesaid khasra Nos. 26, 29, 17/2 and 24/1. It is stated that the said construction was raised much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In reply to para 3 of the petition, it has been categorically stated by the respondents that the entire land owned by the petitioner, including the aforesaid four khasra numbers, was vacant at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and no construction, as alleged, was existing on the said land. In the replication, the petitioner has denied the aforesaid averments made by the respondents and reiterated his stand taken in the writ petition, though with the replication, no proof with regard to the raising of construction prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act has been annexed. While referring to paras 3 and 7 of the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that in this case, the petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and in the objections, the petitioner no where stated that such construction was existing on the aforesaid khasra numbers, much prior to the issuance of notification under CWP No. 1482 of 1994 -3- Section 4 of the Act. In view of the aforesaid admitted position, it appears that the averment made by the respondents in the written statement that at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, no construction was existing on the aforesaid land, is correct, and the averment made in the replication does not inspire any confidence, being not supported by any material. It is not the case of the petitioner that any vacant land adjoining his land has been released from acquisition. In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that no interference is required in the instant petition and the same is, hereby, dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 11, 2009 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) ndj JUDGE