IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18498 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 03.12.2009 Smt. Neeraj Jain .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Sandeep Parkash Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who claims herself to be owner in possession of 8 Kanals of land situated in village Medawas, District Gurgaon, has filed the instant petition for quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent-State by invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 (2) (c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). In this case, a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) (4) of the Act was published on 24.6.2008 for acquisition of lands, situated in villages Ghatta, Berampur, Ullawas, Kadarpur, Medawas, Badshahpur, Nangli Amarpur and Tigra, for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land for sector roads for Sectors 58 to 67 at Gurgaon. In the notification, it was categorically stated that the Governor CWP No. 18498 of 2009 -2- of Haryana was satisfied that the said land was urgently required for the aforesaid public purpose, therefore, the requirement of filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act was dispensed with. On 14.7.2008, notification/declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued and thereafter, the Land Acquisition Collector passed the Award on 15.7.2009 and took possession of the land. After passing of the Award and taking of possession of the land, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the aforesaid acquisition on the ground that there was no urgency for acquiring the land for the aforesaid public purpose and the State Government has illegally and arbitrarily invoked the urgency provisions only with an object to deprive the land owners to file objections to the acquisition under Section 5-A of the Act. It is further alleged that the petitioner could not come to know about the aforesaid notification and the Award before filing the petition, because the publication of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were not effected in the locality. However, with the writ petition, no material was annexed, except the affidavits of three residents of the village to the effect that no munadi was effected in the village regarding the aforesaid acquisition. The petitioner also alleged that while acquiring the aforesaid land, the respondents have acted arbitrarily and discriminatorily and land of some influential persons has been left from acquisition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that in the instant case, the State Government was not CWP No. 18498 of 2009 -3- justified to invoke the urgency provisions for acquiring the land of the petitioner, while dispensing with the requirement of filing objections under Section 5-A of the Act. He argued that at least, the land owners should have been given the right to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act and if that process was adopted, it could have taken only 30 days. This fact indicates that the respondent-State had invoked the urgency provisions with an object to deprive the land owners to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the contents of the petition, we do not find any merit in the instant petition. Undisputedly, the land in question, including the land of the petitioner has been acquired for a public purpose, namely for the development and utilization of land for sector roads for Sectors 58 to 67 at Gurgaon. The respondent-State, while invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 (1) (4) and dispensing with the requirement of Section 5-A of the Act, has categorically framed a subjective opinion that the aforesaid land was required for an urgent public purpose. This satisfaction is the subjective satisfaction of the respondent-Authority, which cannot be gone into by the Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction in absence of any contrary material. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the State Government or its officers have acted mala fidely while exercising the urgency provisions. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of First Land Acquisition Collector and others v. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli and another (2002) 4 SCC 160. CWP No. 18498 of 2009 -4- Therefore, it cannot be said that in the instant case, there was no urgency for acquiring the land for the aforesaid public purpose. Regarding the alleged discrimination, the respondents have not placed on record any material or the lay-out plan of the road to show that the land of some influential persons has been left from acquisition, while issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act, in spite of the fact that their land was also situated in the alignment of the road. In the present case, the award has already been made on 15.7.2009 and the present petition has been filed after passing of the award and taking of possession of the acquired land. After passing of the award and taking possession of the acquired land, the present petition impugning the action of the respondents in acquiring the land in question is not maintainable, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 698, Swaika Properties (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 695 and by this Court in Kamlesh Chander and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 535. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 03, 2009 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) ndj JUDGE