IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18575 of 2006 Date of Decision: July 8, 2008 Satish Chand …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing notification dated 27.11.2003 (P-1), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 24.11.2004 (P-2), issued under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner has claimed that he is owner in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 7/2(0-7) of Rectangle No. 11, measuring 7 Biswas, situated in the revenue estate of Village Tikri, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It has been further claimed that the petitioner has taken steps for development and construction of a residential project and to develop the land for urban use. However, nothing has been placed on record which could show C.W.P. No. 18575 of 2006 that any construction etc. has been raised by the petitioner before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 2. When the matter came up for consideration a Division Bench, vide order dated 23.11.2006, ordered status quo with regard to possession. 3. During the pendency of the petition, the claim made by the petitioner for release of land has been considered by the State Government. To that effect, an affidavit of the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, has been filed alongwith Annexure R-1 disclosing that the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the land from acquisition could not have been acceded to, inasmuch as, the land belonging to the petitioner falls in green belt and service road. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, we are of the considered view that there is no possibility of releasing the land from acquisition as the land belonging to the petitioner fall in green belt and service road. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to place on record any material which would fortify his claim regarding any development being carried out by him over the land in dispute. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) July 8, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 2