CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3959 OF 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: March 31, 2011. Parties Name Ram Chander ...PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification (P-3) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (in short the Act) proposing to acquire more than 1000 Acres of land, situated in village Jharsa and Kanhai, district Gurgaon. The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilisation of land for residential, commercial, institutional and open spaces/ CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3959 OF 1992 -2- recreational area in Gurgaon. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on April 18, 1991,(P-5) ordering acquisition of most of the land, mentioned above. Petitioner is the owner of land falling in Khasra No. 37//17 (6 - 18) and 24 (8-0), situated in village Kanhai, tehsil and district Gurgaon. It is case of the petitioner that in the land falling in Khasra No. 37//17 (6 - 18 ), he had constructed his residential house, which, despite objections raised, has been made subject matter of the acquisition. It is grievance of the petitioner that as per policy of the State Government, residential houses cannot be acquired. The said relief was given to many other land owners, whereas in the case of petitioner, his residential house was ordered to be acquired arbitrarily. To show the construction, site plan (P-1) and Photograph (P-2) were put on record. Upon notice, reply was filed. Para No. 2 of the reply (preliminary objections) reads thus: “2. That at the time of notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act there was construction in the land bearing Khasra No. 37//17 having a covered area 560 Sq. yards. The said construction was of 'A' class. The said construction along with proportionate vacant area measuring 560 Sq. yards was left out of acquisition. Thus an area measuring 1120 Sq. yards ( 1 Kanal 17 Marlas) in the said land was left out of acquisition. There was no other construction over the land of the petitioners at the time of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land of the petitioner which is under acquisition was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3959 OF 1992 -3- completely vacant at the time of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioner merits dismissal on this ground also.” At the time of arguments, Shri Sehgal has specifically stated that as per averments made in para No. 2 of the written-statement, in the land, falling in Khasra No. 37//17, 'A' class construction was in existence in an area measuring 560 Sq. yards. The said construction along with proportionate vacant area was kept out of acquisition. In this manner, total land released comes to 1120 Sq. yards. It is further stated in the reply that there was no other construction, in the land of the petitioner at the time when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued . It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that let the authorities adjust the house of the petitioner, as shown in the photograph and in the site plan by keeping it out of acquisition. Taking note of the averments made in the reply, we feel that requisite relief already stood granted to the petitioner. It has come on record that land measuring 560 Sq. yards along with proportionate vacant land having 'A' class construction has been kept out of acquisition, which obviously means that the land underneath the house depicted by the petitioner in the photograph and the site plan was kept out of acquisition. If that is so, this Court is of the opinion that no further relief can be given to the petitioner. The publication of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act is as per law. Furthermore, acquisition of the land had already been upheld CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3959 OF 1992 -4- by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition 15292 of 1991, decided on November 13, 1991. In view of above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge March 31, 2011. DKC