IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.503 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.7.2010 Devi Singh and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.J.S.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.S.S.Patter, Sr.DAG Haryana Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for Mr.Jaivir Yadav, Advocate for respondent Nos.7 and 8 Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM No.9287 of 2010 Application allowed, reply is taken on record. CWP No.503 of 2008 By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to the notification dated 10.4.2006 (P7), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), seeking to acquire land of the petitioner measuring 0.10 acre. Further challenge is to the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 11.5.2006 (P8). When notice of motion was issued on 15.1.2008, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the land, which is subject matter of acquisition in pursuance of notifications dated 10.4.2006 and 11.5.2006 issued under Civil Writ Petition No.503 of 2008 Sections 4 and 6 read with Sections 7 and 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, respectively, was sold by the petitioner to respondents No.7 and 8, namely, Om Parkash and Praladh. It is obvious from the site plan (Annexures P.4 and P.5) that the aforementioned land does not have any access from the side of 22 feet widened road. The land of the petitioner is sought to be acquired on the excuse that the road in front of the houses of the petitioners alone is to be widened beyond 22 feet and the same is not being widened from any other side. Further, according to learned counsel, it shows malafides and the acquisition of the land is liable to be set aside.” Before us also, it was argued that with a view to provide access to the area purchased by respondent Nos.7 and 8, from the petitioner, disputed portion of land is going to be acquired. After hearing counsel for the parties, we feel that contention raised is not justified. In the written statement, it has specifically been stated that land to widen the existing 22’ road, other than the area now under dispute was acquired way back in the year 1980. Due to some mistake, this portion of the land falling in the ownership of the petitioners was left out of acquisition. We have seen the site plan and are of the opinion that there is no mala fide on the part of the authorities to acquire land of the petitioners, as alleged by them. As per site plan put on record, the petitioners shall have to demolish three shops constructed by them. We have seen the photographs. Shops appear to have been newly constructed. It is evident from Annexure P6 that only tin-shed roof has been put on the shops and even doors are not affixed. It appears that with a view to stall the acquisition proceedings, construction was raised. Small strip of land falling on both sides of the disputed land already stood acquired. 2 Civil Writ Petition No.503 of 2008 Furthermore, award was passed in this case on 11.9.2007. This writ petition was filed in the year 2008, as such, the same cannot be entertained. Reliance in that regard may be placed on the judgments rendered in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C. Padma v. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698; and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664. Further contention of counsel for the petitioners that declaration was issued only in one newspaper cannot be entertained at this belated stage because the petitioners have woken up only after passing of the award. It has also been contended by counsel for the petitioners that in declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act, wrong date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act was mentioned. Be that as it may, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners on account of that. Furthermore, in this case provisions of Section 17 of the Act were invoked. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 21.07.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3