IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11568 of 2010 Date of decision: 5.7.2010 Somesh Kumar …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the notification dated 4.6.2009 issued under section 4 coupled with section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act). Further challenge is laid to the declaration issued under section 6 of the Act on 15.7.2009. Still further, challenge has been laid to the notification dated 4.3.2010 issued by the respondents to take further action in consequent to the notifications mentioned earlier. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner and the respondents had gone through long drawn litigation. The petitioner purchased some land in the year 1996. His vendors were in litigation with the respondent State of Haryana. They were claiming ownership over an Civil Writ Petition No.11568 of 2010 area measuring 3 kanal 1 marla, whereas it was stand of the respondents/ State that said area was being used for running a school and it was ownership of the State. The suit filed by vendors of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court, however, they succeeded in the appellate Court. Matter came to this Court in RSA No.1471 of 1979, which was dismissed vide order dated 8.1.1991. It was specifically held that the petitioner was owner of the land in dispute. The petitioner then went in for execution. The respondents again raised some objections which were dismissed. They came to this Court by filing Civil Revision No.2106 of 1994. Taking note of the observations made by this Court in RSA mentioned above that revision petition was dismissed. However it was left open to the State government to acquire the property in dispute as per law. It is thereafter that the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued. A reading of the contents of RSA mentioned above clearly indicates that around the area in question, a boundary wall was constructed way back in the year 1969 and a room was also constructed thereon. It is virtually apparent from the records that though the school building was situated on the adjoining area, however this area was also being used for running a school. After dismissal of objections filed by the respondents, the petitioner was bound to take possession of the same and in that event study of the students may have suffered. Probably, with a view to avoid that situation, notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued to acquire the petitioner’s land. Contention of the petitioner that acquisition is mala fide, is not justified. The State government has a power to acquire the land for any specific purpose. In the present case, the land has been acquired for running 2 Civil Writ Petition No.11568 of 2010 a Government Senior Secondary School in the village. The petitioner will now get compensation for the land acquired as per rules. We are not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 05.07.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3