IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10982 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 7.10.2010 Sohan Lal and another …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Ravinder Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.11303 of 2010 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, it is allowed and CWP No.10982 of 2010 is restored to its original number. On request made by counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up on board for final disposal today itself. CWP No.10982 of 2010 Photocopy of the order dated 30.7.2009 passed in COCP No.767 of 2009 is taken on record. This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to a notification dated 2.5.2001 (P9), proposing to acquire a vast track of land, including land of the petitioners (two bighas and 1 biswas). Further challenge has been laid to a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on 30.4.2002 (P6). Order passed on 22.8.2007 (P15) is also under Civil Writ Petition No.10982 of 2010(O&M) challenge, vide which, prayer of the petitioners, to release their land from acquisition, was rejected. Heard counsel for the petitioners. This case has a chequered history. It is not in dispute that in the year 1997, above said land was proposed to be acquired. Notifications were issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, which came to be challenged by the land owners, other than the petitioners, by filing many writ petitions, which were disposed of by passing a common order in CWP No.3269 of 1990 on 29.9.1992. The writ petition was allowed, declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act was quashed. It appears that father of the petitioners Basso Ram, who was owner of the land at that time, never raised any objection to the above said acquisition, rather he accepted an amount of ` 85725/- towards compensation. No attempt was made to repay that amount to the Land Acquisition Collector. From the above said facts, it can be presumed that Basso Ram was satisfied with the acquisition made. The authorities again issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 2.5.2001 to acquire land, which was earlier subject matter of the acquisition, including land of the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Even in the objections raised, it was nowhere stated that they were ready and willing to refund the amount earlier received by their father. Their objections did not find favour with the Land Acquisition Collector. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 30.4.2002. It appears that on account of receipt of compensation amount by Basso Ram, who was shown owner at the time when notifications were issued in the years 1987 and in 2001, no award was passed so far as land measuring 2 bighas and 1 biswas is concerned. The petitioners remained satisfied with 2 Civil Writ Petition No.10982 of 2010(O&M) the arrangements made. No attempt was made to lay challenge to the notifications issued, as mentioned above. They kept mum and moved an application in the year 2007 with a prayer that their land be released, which was rejected vide order dated 22.8.2007. It is apparent from the records that in the meantime, petitioner No.8 came to this Court by filing COCP No.767 of 2009. It was her contention that despite request made, the authorities are not accepting the amount offered by her. Above said contempt petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 30.7.2009. Matter went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 8.2.2010, SLP was dismissed as withdrawn. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition, and pursue such other remedy as may be open to him in law. Petition is dismissed accordingly. The petitioner’s apprehension that the observations made by the High Court while dismissing the Contempt Petition is likely to affect any other proceedings that may be initiated, has no basis as whatever has been said by the High Court is with reference to the contempt proceedings.” Thereafter, this writ petition was filed. In view of facts mentioned above and taking note of conduct of the petitioners, no case is made out to interfere. The amount, which their father had received in the nineties, was not returned to the authorities despite many opportunities available to do that. When objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed to the notification issued on 2.5.2001, no effort was made to refund that amount. The notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in the years 2001 and 2002 respectively, were 3 Civil Writ Petition No.10982 of 2010(O&M) not challenged and the authorities were allowed to pass award and thereafter to develop the land, as has been noticed by this Court when contempt petition filed by petitioner No.8 was dismissed on 30.7.2009. It is also an admitted fact that Basso Ram, who was the original owner, after receipt of compensation amount, had filed an application under Section 18 of the Act. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 07.10.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 4