CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3802 OF 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 04 , 2011. Parties Name Om Parkash Yadav and others ...PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and another ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. Chatter Bhuj Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. S.S.Patter, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, for the respondents. Jasbir Singh, J. JUDGMENT By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) on December 16, 1988, whereby land measuring 666.65 Acres in villages Khandsa, Kadipur and Naharpur Rupa, tehsil and district Gurgaon was proposed to be acquired for a public purpose, i.e., for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3802 OF 1990 -2- development and utilisation of land as industrial area (Sector 37) at Gurgaon. Declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on December 14, 1989, finally deciding to acquire land measuring 461.50 Acres in those villages is also under challenge. Petitioners are 12 in number. It is stated by them that they are the owners of small plots, detail of which is given in para No. 2 of the writ petition. It is their case that despite existence of their residential houses with A class construction, in the land in question, the same has been ordered to be acquired without any justification. At the time of arguments, it was brought to our notice that objection under Section 5-A of the Act was filed only by petitioners No. 2 and 7. Other petitioners did not file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act. To the averments made in the writ petition, reply has been filed by respondent No. 2. Paras No. 2 and 3 of the preliminary objections read thus: “2. That objections u/S 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act were filed only by petitioners number 2 and 7 viz S/Sh. Bhup Singh and Laxmi Chand. Petitioners number 1,3,4,5,6 and 8 to 12 did not file any objections u/S 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The said petitioners are, therefore, not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings at this stage. The Civil Writ Petition filed by the said petitioners, therefore, merits dismissal on this ground also. 3. That the petitioners have not come to the Hon'ble Court with clean hands at all. In para No. 2 of the Civil Writ Petition, all CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3802 OF 1990 -3- the petitioners have claimed construction over the land in dispute. The claim of the petitioners is totally false and has been made with malafide intentions. Fact is that at the time of notification u/S 4 of the Land Acquisition Act there was construction only of petitioner No. 2 Sh. Bhup Singh in the land bearing Khasra No. 8//25/2, village Naharpur Roopa, Tehsil and Distt. Gurgaon having a covered area 176 ft. The said construction alongwith proportionate vacant area measuring 176 sq. ft. was left out of acquisition. Thus in all, an area measuring 352 sq. ft of the said petitioner No. 2 Sh. Bhup Singh has been left out of acquisition. Rest of the entire land in dispute under acquisition was completely vacant at the time of notification u/S 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. A survey was conducted by the answering respondent in accordance with law. The relevant record shall be produced before the Hon'ble Court as and when the same is ordered by the Hon'ble Court. The Civil Writ Petition filed by the petitioners merits dismissal on this ground also.” It was further stated that by stating the wrong facts, an attempt has been made to mislead the Court. Before taking any decision on objections filed by respondents No. 2 and 7, opportunity of personal hearing was also given. Land owned by the other petitioners was lying vacant at the time when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. It is necessary to mention here that replication controverting the averments made CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3802 OF 1990 -4- in the written-statement has not been filed. At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioner Shri Chatter Bhuj Goel has vehemently tried to impress upon us that against the policy of State Government, petitioners' residential houses have been ordered to be acquired. However, it is not possible for us to accept that argument. In the written-statement, it is clearly mentioned that except petitioners No. 2 and 7, others have not filed any objection under Section 5- A of the Act and further after affording an opportunity of hearing, constructed house of petitioner No. 2 with proportionate vacant area was kept out of acquisition. So far as others are concerned, at the relevant time, the land was lying vacant and it was rightly acquired. There is nothing on record to show that in the land owned by other petitioners, any construction was in existence. Even replication was not filed to controvert above said averment made by the respondents. The petitioners have failed to make out a case of discrimination. It is not their case that land owned by any other land owner, similarly situated, was released from acquisition. Qua those, who have not filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Act, in view of ratio of judgment in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. , AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3822, this writ petition is not maintainable. Otherwise also, acquisition, which is impugned in this petition was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Roopwati and others v. The State of Haryana and another, Civil Writ Petition No. 3611 of 1990, decided on March 17, 2011. In that case, after noting the averments made by the respondents that the land was lying vacant at the relevant time, it was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3802 OF 1990 -5- observed as under: “From the stand taken by the respondents in the written statement as aforesaid and which has not been controverted, it is crystal clear that the objections filed by the petitioners were duly considered after granting them an opportunity of hearing and they were duly represented at the time of hearing. Not only this, it is the petitioners' own case that open courtyard of their plot which was lying vacant has been acquired and it has also come on record that there was construction over the land of other land owners as mentioned in para No.11 of the writ petition on the basis of which discrimination to the petitioners was claimed. There is absolutely no document on record on the basis of which it can be made out as to how the acquisition was bad.” To the same effect is the opinion of a Division Bench of this Court in case Bharat Bhushan Khera v.The State of Haryana and others, Civil Writ Petition No. 10293 of 1990, decided on March 21, 2011, wherein also, the acquisition under challenge was upheld. In view of facts, mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 04, 2011. DKC