IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.109 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.7.2009 Jito Devi and others. -----Appellants Vs. State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondents. ----- Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.: 1. The appellants are aggrieved by dismissal of their writ petition, challenging acquisition of land in pursuance of notifications dated 27.8.1981 under Section 4 and 10.1.1983 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”). 2. The acquisition was for the purpose of development and utilization of land as residential and commercial area for Panchkula extension under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Award in respect of the said acquisition was made on 2.2.1984 and most of the land was taken and compensation paid. LPA No.109 of 2007 3. Main objection in the writ petition, which was filed in the year 1984, was that objections under Section 5A of the Act were not duly considered and while the State released some of the land which was covered by construction, objections of the petitioners to that extent were not accepted. 4. The State contested the writ petition and pointed out that no specific objections were filed and only general and vague objections were filed. The petition was highly belated and filed after the award. Some of the writ petitioners had also accepted the compensation. Part of the land of the petitioners had already been developed by the State and only on account of stay, a pocket of the land could not be developed. Release in favour of some of the land owners was on account of specific reasons mentioned in reply, which were not applicable to the appellants. There was unplanned and haphazard construction of structures raised by the appellants, the roofs of some of them were of corrugated sheets and some of the constructions did not exist at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 5. Learned Single Judge held that objections filed by the appellants were not clear. Two of the appellants, though affixed their thumb impressions thereon, had never raised any objection and had also received part of compensation. Land released in favour of Brij Lal and R.N. Prashar stood on different footing and case of the appellants was not comparable. The acquisition was 2 LPA No.109 of 2007 for planned development, which was a public purpose and the same was not liable to be interfered with. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants repeated the points which were earlier raised before the learned Single Judge, namely non-consideration of objections under Section 5A of the Act, discrimination and not releasing the built up area in terms of policy of release. A status report has been filed by the respondents, in pursuance of earlier order, to the effect that original petitioners No.1 to 4, 6 and 8 to 10 had not filed any objection under Section 5A of the Act. Four out of ten petitioners had already received compensation. Writ petition was filed after the award. 8. We do not find any merit in the submissions of the appellants. There is nothing to dispute the findings of the learned Single Judge that there was no specific objection under Section 5A of the Act. The persons in whose favour land was released stood on different footings. The construction of the appellants was haphazard and could not justify quashing of acquisition, which was for a valid public purpose. 9. The Appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 20, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ashwani JUDGE 3