Civil Writ Petition No.8591 of 2009 (O&M) 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.8591 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:-November 28,2009 M/s Sharad Farms & Holdings Private Limited and others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ashish Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Ajay Nara, Advocate for Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for respondent No.4. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. (oral) This petition seeks quashing of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide notification dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P5) under section 4 and notification dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P9) under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose, namely, for residential Sector 36, Rohtak under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The petitioners claim to be colonisers. They purchased the said land just before initiation of acquisition proceedings for setting up a private colony and applied for licence for the said purpose. The licence was granted for a part of land other than the land which has been covered by the acquisition. Contention raised is that once the petitioners proposed to Civil Writ Petition No.8591 of 2009 (O&M) 3 use the acquired land for a colony, the same could not be subject matter of the acquisition, particularly in view of the policy of the State to release the land in respect of which the licence for setting up a colony was obtained. In the reply filed, the stand taken is that the petitioners themselves gave letter dated 15.1.2009 (Annexure R1) to the effect that they did not wish to pursue their case for grant of licence. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that by letter (Annexure R1) they had only sought deferment of the matter till dispute about the validity of policy pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.3644 of 2009 titled State of Haryana & Ors. v. Hari Chand & Ors. was decided. He further submits that procedure for refusal of licence has not been followed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are unable to hold the acquisition to be bad merely on the ground that an application for grant of licence for setting up of a colony was made and such application was pending. If purpose of acquisition is genuine, ground put forward for challenging acquisition cannot be accepted. It is not the case of the petitioners that purpose of acquisition is not bonafide or genuine. Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 28.11.2009 Judge Civil Writ Petition No.8591 of 2009 (O&M) 3 AS