CWP No. 4623 of 2010 and another connected case(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.10.2010 CWP No. 4623 of 2010 (O&M) Alka Sharma and another ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 6960 of 2010 (O&M) Krishna Devi 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. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners . Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5. None for respondent No. 4. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for respondents No. 7 to 9. Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for respondent No. 10. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of CWP No. 4623 of 2010 (O&M) titled as Alka Sharma and another vs. State of Haryana and others and CWP No. 6960 of 2010 (O&M) titled as Krishna Devi and others vs. State of Haryana and others. To dictate order, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 4623 of 2010 and another connected case(O&M) 2 CWP No. 4623 of 2010. This writ petition has been filed to impugn notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on 30.05.2005 (P-3) and 22.05.2006 (P-6) respectively. Further challenge has been made to an Award pronounced on 16.07.2007. Counsel for the parties heard. Vide the notifications mentioned above, a vast track of land including land of the petitioners measuring 200 sq. yards, situated in Vishnu Garden Colony, Jagadhri was ordered to be acquired. It is contention of the counsel for the petitioners that 'in principle', it was decided by the State authorities not to acquire land falling in Vishnu Garden Colony. To say so, reference was made to the proceedings of Joint Site Inspection Committee dated 25.01.2006. It is case of the petitioners that in consequent to the report mentioned above, area falling in Rakshak Vihar, Satsang Vihar, Atam Nagar and Vishnu Garden colonies was ordered to be regularized and kept out of acquisition. However, the area of Vishnu Garden Colony was wrongly shown as 9.5 Acres instead of 19.5 Acres. In reply filed by the Land Acquisition Collector, it is specifically admitted in paragraph No. 4 that land of the petitioners falls in Vishnu Garden Colony. It is contention of the counsel for the petitioners that under similar circumstances, on orders passed by this Court, in various writ petitions, including CWP No. 7668 of 2010 decided on 28.07.2010, the land owned by the petitioners therein and many other land owners, was released out of acquisition. To the above- said averment, no contradiction has been offered, rather the same stands admitted. In view of above, we feel that it was not justified for the authorities to acquire land of the petitioners, as has been done in the CWP No. 4623 of 2010 and another connected case(O&M) 3 present case. Records reveal that when this writ petition came up for hearing on 16.03.2010, it was contention of the counsel for the petitioners that after passing of an Award on 16.07.2009, licenses were issued to the private colonizers. On the above-said date, following order was passed by this Court:- “ Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for two days time to implead those colonizers in whose favour licenses have been issued after issuance of notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or after the award. It is apt to mention here that award in this case was announced on 16.7.2009 and according to the report of the District Town and Country Planner, Yamuna Nagar, colonizers have been issued licenses in September, 2007, which is wholly impermissible in law. List again on 19.03.2010.” Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application to implead respondents No. 7 to 10 in this writ petition. Vide order dated 19.03.2010, respondents No. 7 to 10 were directed to maintain status quo regarding land released in their favour. It was directed that they shall not undertake any further constructions on the property in dispute. Counsel for respondents No. 7 to 9 brought to our notice that in an S.L.P. No. (Civil) CC 12313 of 2010, operation of the impugned order has been stayed. It was specifically stated that the proceedings in this case were not stayed. At the time of arguments, we have seen the explanation given by respondents No. 7 to 9 in their reply, wherein it has been stated that CWP No. 4623 of 2010 and another connected case(O&M) 4 they purchased the land before issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and moved an application to get a lincense to develop the colony on 25.04.2005 i.e. before issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Act on 30.05.2005. The respondents, above named, along with their application had deposited scrutiny fee of Rs. 21,08,625/- and license fee of Rs. 13,02,300/-. On issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, they filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and taking note of the fact, stated above, their land was not included in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act. The license to develop a colony was granted on 03.06.2005 i.e. much prior to the passing of an Award in this case on 22.05.2006. In view of above, we feel that against respondents No. 7 to 9, no case is made out for interference by this Court. So far as respondent No. 10 is concerned, his land measuring about 200 sq. yards was released from acquisition during pendency of CWP No. 2767 of 2009 filed by him and above-said writ petition was ordered to be disposed of having become infructuous. In view of above, we feel that no action is needed to be taken against respondents No. 7 to 10. So far as the petitioners are concerned, their writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7668 of 2010 decided on 28.07.2010. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE October 04, 2010 pj CWP No. 4623 of 2010 and another connected case(O&M) 5