IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5891 of 2011 Date of decision: 06.04.2011 Gurmail Singh and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM No.4999 of 2011 Application allowed, document is taken on record. CWP No.5891 of 2011 Petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash notifications, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 16.12.2009 (P3) and 25.8.2010 (P5) respectively, proposing to acquire land falling in khasra Nos.3 min (22-13), 63 min (0- 16), 64 min (0-16) total measuring 24 bighas and 5 biswas (5.05 acres). The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, ‘for construction of Sewage Treatment Plant and Sullage Carrier for Pinjore Town on Pinjore-Nalagarh Road in village Manakpur Nanakchand, tehsil Kalka, district Panchkula’. Civil Writ Petition No.5891 of 2011 When this matter came up for hearing on 1.4.2011, by making reference to a site plan (P6), in which, the petitioners’ land is shown with red colour, it was argued that in between the major chunk of land acquired to set up the sewage plant and land of the petitioners, area shown in green colour belonging to other land owners, has not been acquired. It was contention of counsel for the petitioners that if that is so, the petitioners’ land cannot be used by the authorities for the purpose for which it is going to be acquired. We orally asked the State counsel to get information in that regard. Today in Court, a copy of the site plan has been put on record, which is taken on record as ‘Mark CX’. By making reference to the same and on getting instructions from Mr.Mangat Rai, XEN, Public Health Engineering Department, Yamuna Nagar, who is present in Court, the State counsel informs that only land for passage has been acquired out of khasra Nos.23 and 64. In the site plan, length and breadth of passage is also shown. If that is so, we feel that the objection raised by the petitioners to the proposed acquisition is not justified. Further whether the land is suitable to set up a sewage plant is the function/duty of the authorities. The Court is not supposed to substitute its opinion to the proposal made by the technical hands. The writ petition stands disposed of. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 06.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 2