CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2228 OF 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: January 07, 2011. Parties Name Spick(India) Private Ltd. and another ...PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana; Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) Judgment. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) on October 1, 1973, and October 1, 1976 respectively. Still further challenge has been laid to an Award passed on September 21, 1978. It is also prayer of the petitioners that notice issued on November 26, 1987, directing them to hand over vacant possession of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2228 OF 1988 -2- premises in dispute be also quashed. Heard counsel for the parties. It is apparent from the record that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on October 1, 1973, to acquire about 32 Acres of land, for a public purpose, namely, development and utilisation as residential area in Sector 28, Faridabad Ballabgarh Controlled Area. Petitioners, by stating that a running industrial unit is in existence in their land and as per policy of the State Government, it cannot be acquired, filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on October 1, 1976. Petitioners by agitating that no decision has been taken on objections filed by them, under Section 5-A of the Act, filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 694 of 1974, which was allowed by this Court on February 22, 1974, quashing notification under Section 6 of the Act, however, giving liberty to the respondent – authorities to proceed ahead with the acquisition after taking a decision on objections filed by the petitioners. The petitioners were called by the Land Acquisition Collector, their objections were decided by making recommendations in their favour and the matter was sent to the competent authority for taking an appropriate decision. The recommendation made by the Land Acquisition Collector did not find favour with the government and accordingly to acquire the land, notification was again issued under Section 6 of the Act on October 1, 1976. Thereafter award was passed on September 21, 1978. Many right holders came to this Court to lay challenge to the acquisition in question. However, the petitioners remained satisfied and did CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2228 OF 1988 -3- nothing despite having knowledge of the acquisition proceedings. This writ petition was filed in the year 1988, i.e., after a lapse of more than 11 years of the date of issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act. In this writ petition, no explanation has been given for this huge delay. It is only stated that when notice for handing over vacant possession of the premises was served upon the petitioners, on November 26, 1987, this writ petition was filed. The petitioners took a chance, kept on waiting for more than 11 years, as such, at this stage, no relief can be given to them. This land was acquired for development and utilisation as residential area, existence of an industry will be detrimental to the health of the residents. Furthermore, this writ petition having been filed after passing of an Award, cannot be entertained in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sawaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664. Counsel for the petitioners, in order to claim relief, placed reliance upon an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 258 of 1983 (Sita Wanti v. State of Haryana and another), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court after getting the spot inspection done, through a Local Commissioner ordered that industrial unit held by Sita Wanti be exempted from land acquisition. We are of the view that no benefit can be given to the petitioners on the basis of above said order. In that case, Sita Wanti laid challenge to the acquisition by filing a writ petition in the year 1979, which was dismissed on January 29, 1979. She went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court immediately thereafter. However, the final decision was taken only on August 23, 1996. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2228 OF 1988 -4- In the present case, no compassion can be shown to the petitioners, who remained satisfied with the order passed for more than 11 years. At this belated stage, this writ petition is not maintainable. Our view finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan and others, (Civil Appeal No. 1757 of 2002), decided on October 29, 2010. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge January 07, 2011. DKC