Civil Writ Petition No.18164 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.18164 of 2008 Date of Decision:-11.11.2009 Smt.Neha Mittal ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.R.M.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. J.S.KHEHAR, J.(ORAL) State Government issued notification dated 19.1.2006 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) seeking to acquire 0.26 acres of land. However, without waiting for the landowners affected by the aforesaid notification to file objections under section 5-A of the Act, another notification was issued under section 6 of the Act on 20.1.2006, by invoking emergency provision envisaged under section 17 of the Act. The petitioner impugned the aforesaid notifications dated 19.1.2006/20.1.2006 by filing Civil Writ Petition No.4794 of 2006, which came to be partly allowed by this Court on 7.8.2006. While allowing the Civil Writ Petition No.18164 of 2008 2 aforesaid writ petition, this Court, inter-alia, directed as under:- “Consequently, we partly allow the writ petition with a direction that the land owned by the petitioners which comes in the way of the road proposed to be constructed and also the portion of the land which forms part of plot no.2-P shall remain acquired. Rest of the land of the petitioners shall stand released from acquisition as it does not fall within the 60 metre wide road.” Consequent upon the disposal of CWP No.4794 of 2006 in the terms referred to here-in-above, the Land Acquisition Collector announced his award on 24.7.2007, depicting the acquisition of 0.19 acres of land (as against 0.26 acres of originally acquired). The remaining land measuring 0.07 acres, in the ownership of the petitioner, was by natural implication, released from acquisition. Despite the success of the petitioner, as has been noticed in the aforesaid paragraph, fructifying in the release of 0.07 acres of land, the respondents issued yet another notification dated 19.11.2007 under section 4 of the Act seeking to acquire 0.06 acres of land. Needless to mention that the land which was ordered to be released on the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.4794 of 2006 was again acquired. The petitioner did not file any objections under section 5-A of the Act. Thereafter, the State Government issued a notification dated 12.8.2008 under section 6 of the Act, declaring the acquisition of 0.06 acres of land. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the notifications dated 19.11.2007 and 12.8.2008 (referred to here-in-above). The first contention advanced by learned counsel for the Civil Writ Petition No.18164 of 2008 3 petitioner is that, once this Court had arrived at the conclusion while disposing of CWP No.4794 of 2006, that the land of the petitioner had wrongly been acquired, and once, this Court had ordered the release of 0.07 acre of land (earlier acquired through notifications dated 19.1.2006/20.1.2006), it was not open for the respondents to acquire the same land over again. It is not possible for us to accept the first contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. When the earlier notifications dated 19.1.2006/20.1.2006 were issued the purpose of acquisition depicted in the notification issued by the government was, construction of a road. The pleas of the petitioner while adjudicating upon CWP No.4794 of 2006 were based on the purpose of acquisition depicted in the notification. This Court arrived at the conclusion that 0.07 acres of land belonging to the petitioner was not actually required for the construction of the road under reference. Accordingly, an appropriate order was passed releasing the land of the petitioner which could not be utilized for the purpose depicted in the notifications. That has nothing to do in so far as the present acquisition process is concerned. While issuing the notifications dated 19.11.2007 and 12.8.2008 the purpose depicted by the respondents for acquiring the land under reference is “...for the development and utilization of the land as residential in Sector 6 ....” The purport of the notifications presently issued, can be appropriately understood by a reference to the site plan available on the record of this case, wherein, it clearly stands depicted, that the land of the petitioner is almost triangular in shape. The site plan depicts, the land of the petitioner depicted in red, falls in plot Nos.2-P and 3-P. In so far as the land Civil Writ Petition No.18164 of 2008 4 of the petitioner over plot No.2-P is concerned, the same was ordered to be acquired even in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.4794 of 2006. The land which remained with the petitioner, is a small part of plot No.3-P. If the instant land is not acquired, the whole architectural lay out, at least for one street in the residential complex envisaged by the respondents will be adversely affected. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the respondents have acquired the land which was owned by the petitioner and falls in Plot No.3- P, for a just and valid cause. As such we find no merit in the first contention of the learned counsel. The second contention advanced at the hands of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, it is not permissible for the government to change the purpose for which it is presently acquiring the land of the petitioner. It is submitted that having once depicted the purpose of acquisition in notifications dated 19.1.2006/20.1.2006, as construction of road, it is not now open to the respondents to re-acquire the same land, by asserting that the same was being acquired for residential purposes. It is not possible for us to accept even the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since it is not the case of the petitioner, that the land under reference is being acquired for extraneous considerations, or on account of mala fides. It is apparent that purpose for which the land is acquired is not a matter of any personal harm to the petitioner. Site plan, referred to here-in-above, in an earlier part of this order reveals that it would be in the best interest of the architectural planning if a small chunk of land measuring 0.07 acres is acquired so that an entire unbroken row of the houses can be constructed thereon. Civil Writ Petition No.18164 of 2008 5 Thus viewed, we find no merit even in the second contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 11.11.2009 Judge AS