CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3457 OF 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: June 28, 2010. Parties Name Sat Pal Malik etc. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS The State of Haryana etc. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih. PRESENT: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana; JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash Notification dated December 16, 1988 (P-3), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) to acquire a vast track of land for development of residential and commercial area in Sector 23, Sonepat. Further challenge has been laid to the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. It is grievance of all the petitioners that they had raised construction over the property, which is subject matter of acquisition, and as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3457 OF 1990 -2- per policy of the State Government, constructed area cannot be acquired. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, dispossession of the petitioners and further proceedings regarding acquisition were stayed. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners are in possession of the land, which is subject matter of the impugned notification. It is stated by counsel for the parties that during pendency of this writ petition, requisite relief has been granted to petitioners No. 3,6, 7, 9, 11 and 13. It is further stated by them that land owned by petitioners No. 2,4,14,15 and 16 does not find mentioned in the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and as such it was not subject matter of acquisition. In view of this, we are of the view that the writ petition qua above said petitioners has become infructuous. So far as petitioners No. 10 and 12 are concerned, it has been specifically stated by the counsel for the respondents that they (petitioners No. 10 and 12) had not filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act and qua petitioners No. 1 and 5, it has been stated by him that after filing the objections, they, on receipt of notice, failed to appear before the Collector when their objections were to be decided. Regarding petitioner No. 8 nothing has been said in the written-statement. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that so far as petitioners No. 10 and 12 are concerned, since they had not filed any objections under Section 5-A of the Act, no relief can be given to them at this stage. Accordingly, qua them this writ petition is dismissed. However, so far as petitioners No. 1, 5 and 8 are concerned, it is an admitted fact that they had filed objections, however, the same were not decided on merits in view of a fact that they had failed to put in appearance before the Collector CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3457 OF 1990 -3- when their objections were to be heard. It is also an admitted fact that constructed portion of some of the petitioners and many others was left out of acquisition as per the policy prevailing then. In view of facts, mentioned above, we dispose of this writ petition by issuing directions to the competent authority to consider objections of petitioners No. 1,5 and 8 and decide the same. However, if they are similarly situated with the other petitioners, to whom relief has been granted, similar relief be also granted to them. Petitioners No. 1,5 and 8 are directed to appear before the Collector on July 19, 2010, who shall hear their objections and pass a reasoned order within three months. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE June 28 , 2010. DKC