CWP No. 2071 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2071 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 09, 2011 Rishi Raj Jain …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No. 2097 of 2009) Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No. 2068 of 2009) Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No. 2071 of 2009) Mr. Kamaljit Singh, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Khosla, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No. 2099 of 2009) Mr. J.L. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No. 2634 of 2008) Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of a set of five writ petitions*, namely, CWP Nos. 2634 of 2008, 2097, 2068, 2071, 2099 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the facts are CWP No. 2071 of 2009 -2- being taken from CWP No. 2071 of 2009. The prayer made by the petitioner is for quashing notification dated 15/19.02.2007 (P-6) issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and notification dated 31.10.2007 (P- 8) issued under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. The petitioner has placed on record a letter dated 01.04.2009 (P-13) and 21.07.2009 (P-14), which clearly indicate that the land in dispute was not required for internal roads as per the new alignment and it may be got denotified. These Khasra nos. would not fall in that part of internal roads. The name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 3 (P- 14). According to column No. 3, this land is not required as per the approved lay out plan for construction and widening of approach road or any road referred in the enclosed plan. This plea has been raised in addition to various other pleas raised by the petitioner including the invoking of urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act. 2. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned counsel for Haryana Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (for brevity 'HSIIDC') has expressed an apprehension that award in respect of the land has been announced on 11.02.2009, which shows that the possession of the land has also been taken over. In that regard, it is pertinent to mention that the instant petition has been filed on 07.02.2009 and all the proceedings would necessarily be subject to result of the instant petition on the principle of lis pendent. Once the petitioner has interjected the acquisition proceeding by invoking urgency/ emergency clause then such proceedings would remain CWP No. 2071 of 2009 -3- subject to final result of the writ petition. It is nobody's case that the land is still required to be utilised for a public purpose for which notifications were issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act and under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act (P-6 and P- 8). 3. Even otherwise, these notifications cannot be defended by the State in view of the fact that the notification was issued on 19.02.2007 and 31.10.2007 and possession was taken on 11.02.2009, which is almost after a period of two years. Depriving a citizen of his right of hearing under Section 5-A of the Act is a serious matter and the State has been advised to be conscious. There does not seem to be any urgency for invoking Section 17 of the Act particularly when about two years' time has been taken to take possession. It is not a case where delay of 30 days could not have been permitted by granting opportunity to the citizen to file objections reply under Section 5-A of the Act after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. For the aforesaid view, we draw support from the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Mukesh Hans v. Union of India (2004) 8 SCC 14 and Radheyshayam v. State of U.P. (2011) 5 SCC 555 and therefore, on that score the acquisition would not sustain legal challenge. 4. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to denotify the land of the petitioner(s) as per recommendation made by the Chief Town Planner. CWP No. 2071 of 2009 -4- 5. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE September 09, 2011 Atul * Sr. No. Writ Petition No. Party name 1 CWP No. 2071 of 2009 Rishi Raj Jain v. State of Haryana and others 2 CWP No. 2097 of 2009 M/s Parmount Steels v. State of Haryana and others 3 CWP No. 2068 of 2009 Mahle Filter Systems (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana & others 4 CWP No. 2099 of 2009 M/s Multi Therm Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & others 5 CWP No. 2634 of 2008 M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE September 09, 2011 Atul