CWP 6821 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 6821 of 2007 Date of decision 1 .5.2008 Anita Garg ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG Hy. M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against acquisition proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') by issuance of notification on 2.5.2001 ( Annexure P.6) and declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 30.4.2002 ( Annexure P.8). The petitioner has further prayed that since the house of the petitioner is built and situated in an approved colony, the subsequent proceedings after the announcement of the award dated 27.4.2006 may also be set aside or the land of the petitioner alongwith her house be exempted from acquisition. The case of the petitioner is that she has purchased the land by an agreement to sell dated 10.1.2004 and has built a house on that plot which is situated in Jyoti Nagar Colony. It has further been asserted that Jyoti Nagar colony at Jagadhri has been approved by the respondent- State as is evident from the perusal of order dated 17.12.2004 ( Annexure P.7) and the schedule of various colonies attached therewith. The Jyoti Nagar Colony figures at serial No.26. On the afore-mentioned basis, the petitioner has claimed the relief of releasing of her land from acquisition. The petitioner has further pointed out that earlier she filed CWP No. 686 of 2006 CWP 6821 of 2007 2 which came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court on 31.10.2006. A direction was issued by a Division Bench directing the Director, Urban Estate, respondent no.2 to decide her representation . Accordingly, her representation has been decided by passing a speaking order dated 13.4.2007 ( Annexure P.10). The Director, Urban Estates, respondent no.2 has also recorded a categorical finding that earlier the land was owned by one Shri Suresh Kumar son of Shri Om Parkash and it was during the pendency of acquisition proceedings that he entered into an agreement to sell with the petitioner on 10.1.2004. It has also been pointed out that Shri Suresh Kumar had challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing a CWP No.5914 of 2004 which was dismissed on 15.4.2004 in respect of same khasra number i.e. Khasra No. 564 Min. measuring 6 biswas. The Director, Urban Estates, respondent no.2 also recorded another finding that vide letter dated 13.4.2007, the Urban Development Department has clarified that the land belonging to the petitioner falling in khasra no.564 of Mouja Tejli falls in Sector 15 of HUDA and is outside the boundary of regularised colony of Jyoti Nagar and Jyoti Nagar Extension. A copy of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner Suresh Kumar has also been placed on record as Annexure P.12. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length we find that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief for a number of reasons. Firstly she has no locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings as she has entered into an agreement to sell dated 10.1.2004 for purchase of land after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and as such the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the acquisition CWP 6821 of 2007 3 proceedings as has been held by their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (1996) 11 SCC 698, Municipal Council Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig (2000)2 SCC 48, C.Padma V. Dy. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadhu (1997)2 SCC 627 and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd v. State of Rajasthan JT 2008(2) SC 280. Likewise, the petitioner loose the locus standi to challenge the acquisition proceedings after the award which was announced on 27.4.2006. Even if the date of filing of petition is taken from earlier petition i.e. CWP No. 686 of 2006, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings. It is further clear that Suresh Kumar, the owner of the plot and the predecessor in interest of the petitioner also filed CWP No.5914 of 2004 which has been dismissed on 15.4.2004 (Annexure P.12) by a Division Bench of this Court. The version of the petitioner that the plot is situated in a regularised colony namely Jyoti Nagar Colony or Jyoti Nagar extension colony is also doubtful because the Director, Urban Estates, respondent no.2 in his order dated 13.4.2007 ( Annexure P.10) has taken the stand that khasra No.564 of Mouja Tejli is outside the boundary of a regularised colony of Jyoti Nagar and Jyoti Nagar extension. For all the reasons mentioned above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, we left the parties to bear their own costs. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 1.5.2008 Judge okg