IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5458 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 17.12.2009 Krishan Lal .... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who claims himself to be tenant-at-will and in possession of the land measuring 17 Kanals 7 Marlas, comprising in Khasra No. 35//11/1 (5-6), 20/1 (5-17) and 21/1 (6-4), has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 23.1.2003 (Annexure P-5), whereby only 2 Kanals 10 Marlas of the land has been released by the respondent-State, with a further direction to the respondents not to take forcible possession of the aforesaid land under the CWP No. 5458 of 2009 -2- tenancy of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the State Government issued notifications dated 12.5.1995 and 10.5.1996, under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), respectively, to acquire land, including the aforesaid land measuring 17 Kanals 7 Marlas, for a public purpose, namely for development of Sector 64, Faridabad. The award was passed on 6.5.1998. It is the admitted fact that earlier, the petitioner had challenged the acquisition of his land by filing CWP No. 5501 of 1998, which was disposed of by this Court with a bunch of petitions, vide order dated 4.1.2001, with a direction to the petitioners in those petitions to file separate representations for considering their claim for release of their land. The Secretary, Department of Urban Estates, Government of Haryana, was directed to consider those representations in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. It was also ordered that the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in their possession for a period of two weeks after the final order is passed. In view of the aforesaid direction, the representation filed by the petitioner was considered and vide the impugned order, he was intimated that his 2 Kanals 10 Marlas of land comprised in khasra No. 35//11/1, which is situated in Block A has been left from acquisition. The petitioner has challenged the said order by filing the instant petition after more than six years, on the ground that he remained under a bonafide CWP No. 5458 of 2009 -3- impression that the entire land under his tenancy was left from acquisition and he learnt about the impugned order, only when the respondent HUDA came to take forcible possession of his land. It is the case of the petitioner that without paying compensation to him, the HUDA authorities cannot take possession of the land, on which he is tenant. In the written statement, it has been stated that land of the petitioner falls in residential Sector 64, which has been acquired as per the final development plan of Faridabad. It has been stated that 2 Kanals 10 Marlas land of the petitioner, on which construction was existing, has been left from acquisition and the remaining land could not be released, as the same was falling in the green belt and the road, as shown in the master plan. It has been further stated that regarding the remaining land, award was passed on 6.5.1998 and the possession was taken and now the same cannot be left from acquisition. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that except for 2 Kanals 10 Marlas of land, which has been released, the petitioner has already taken compensation with regard to his entire land. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that at this belated stage, this writ petition is not maintainable, particularly in view of the fact that the award was passed on 6.5.1998 and possession of the land was taken by the respondents and the petitioner has already received compensation of his CWP No. 5458 of 2009 -4- acquired land. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 17, 2009 ( MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR ) ndj JUDGE