Civil Writ Petition No. 5035 of 2008. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision : 30.10.2008. Pawan Kumar Sharma Petitioner. VERSUS State of Haryana and others. Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. --- Present:- Mr. M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. Advocate General,Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for HUDA. --- 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M.KUMAR,J. The petitioner has challenged the notification dated 15.12.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') (Annexure P-5) and the declaration dated 14.12.2007 made under Section 6 of the Act (Annexure P-9). It is conceded position that the petitioner has filed objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, which have been duly considered. The case of the Civil Writ Petition No. 5035 of 2008. 2 petitioner is that he has suffered prejudice at the hands of the respondents inasmuch as declaration issued under section 6 specifically mentions invoking of urgency provision conferred under Section 17 of the Act. Looking at the written statement filed by the respondents, we find no substance in the aforementioned contention because it has been clarified that after issuance of notification under Section 4 on 15.12.2006, objections were duly filed by the petitioner on 17.1.2007 under Section 5A which have been considered. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that it is inadvertent/ clerical mistake gain credibility. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the first ground raised in support of the petition. The second submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the notification under Section 4 (Annexure P-5), the area of khasra number has not been specified. A perusal of the notification dated 15.12.2006 would show that the respondents are very specific in mentioning District, Tehsil, Village, Locality, Hadh-Bast number and area in acres. It has also been specified that the area belongs to Rect number, Killa and Khasra numbers which have been specified. We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. There was no satisfactory reply to the aforementioned query. The other arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is a temple which was constructed on the land in question and according to the policy of the State Government Civil Writ Petition No. 5035 of 2008. 3 dated 30.9.2007 (extract of an order, Annexure P-8) that the religious institutions/buildings are required to be released from acquisition. The argument lacks substance because policy Annexure P-8 requires that the constructions have to be before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In para 2 of the written statement, a specific stand has been taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 5 inasmuch as it has been pointed out that according to the survey report temple has been constructed after notification under Section 4 was issued. It has also been clarified that total land measuring 1.97 acre has been released from the acquisition because of the constructed area before 5.4.notification which petitioner's land measuring '01' biswa as per policy of the State Government. It has also come on the record that the petitioner has filed application for grant of change of land used which has been rejected vide order passed by the Director on 29.10.2007. The aforementioned order passed by the Director is appealable and the appeal is pending before the Financial Commissioner. In view of the above, we find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE 30.10.2008 ( JORA SINGH) Anoop JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No. 5035 of 2008. 4