CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11325 OF 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 2 , 2011. Parties Name Geeta Thakur and another ...PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. V.G.Dogra, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. JUDGMENT This judgment will dispose of two writ petitions, i.e., Civil Writ Petitions No. 11325 of 1990 and 1058 of 2000 involving similar facts. For dictating the judgment, facts are being mentioned from CWP No. 11325 of 1990. Petitioners are the owners of land falling in Khasra Nos. 672, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11325 OF 1990 -2- 673/1, 678, 684/2min and 687, total measuring 1 Bigha and 18 Biswas, situated in village Khandsa, district Gurgaon. By filing this writ petition, a challenge has been laid to the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) on December 16, 1988 and December 14, 1989, respectively, to acquire a vast track of land including above mentioned land of the petitioners, for a public purpose, namely, for development and utilisation of land for industrial plan under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. It appears that when this writ petition was filed, the petitioners did not include land falling in Khasra No. 673/2 in this writ petition impugning the above mentioned notifications. Afterwards, when they came to know that the land falling in the above said Khasra number was also subject matter of acquisition, then second writ petition, i.e., CWP No. 1058 of 2000 was filed. It is case of the petitioners that in the land in dispute, they had set up a small scale industry for manufacture of re-inforced concrete slabs and a steel fabrication unit was also in operation. It is further stated that a shed to carry out the above said activity has been constructed and the open space is being used for curing and drying processes for the pre-cast concrete slabs. It is also stated that on issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and upon their doing so, 8 Biswas of land with construction was kept out of acquisition and rest of the land measuring 1 Bigha and 10 Biswas was made subject matter of acquisition. By stating that the vacant land is needed for industrial purposes as stated above, a prayer has been made to quash the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11325 OF 1990 -3- impugned notifications. To the notice issued, reply has been filed. It is stated that the entire constructed area has been left out of acquisition and only vacant land has been ordered to be acquired. Para No. 11 of the reply reads thus: “11. That in reply to para No. 11 of the Civil Writ Petition, it is submitted that a declaration u/S 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14-12-89. The said declaration included only vacant land of the petitioners. The constructed portion has been left out of acquisition. Therefore, the land which is under acquisition was completely vacant at the relevant time. In the Annexure P-2, site plan supplied to the answering respondent no colours have been shown at all. It is, therefore, not possible for the answering respondent to make a reply to the same. The answering respondent reserves its right to make a reply to the same at a later stage.” After hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that no case is made out for interference at the instance of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the land with construction,fter noting objections under Section 5-A of the Act, was kept out of acquisition. The vacant land was ordered to be acquired. Except averments made in the writ petition, there is nothing on record to show that the vacant land was needed to carry out the industrial activity by the petitioners. It is also an admitted fact that the land in dispute falls within the controlled area declared under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11325 OF 1990 -4- Whatever construction was raised, it was in violation to the provisions of the above said Act. However, subsequent thereto, it appears that the construction was compounded. We feel that such a litigant, who has raised construction in violation of the provisions of the law, cannot be granted any relief when exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, both the writ petitions are dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 2, 2011. DKC