CWP No.15254 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15254 of 2009 Date of Decision:- February 26, 2010 M/s Lara Industries ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: None. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** M.M.KUMAR, J. Prayer in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of direction to respondents to de-notify the land/property known as M/s Lara Industries, Bassai Road, Bhawani Enclave Gurgaon. In other words, prayer is for issuance of directions to the respondents and its officers to withdraw the notifications issued under various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). According to the averments made by the petitioner, the land/property of the petitioner was notified under Section 4 of the Act on 4.4.1998 by invoking urgency provision under Section 17 of the Act. Thereafter, a declaration was made on 6.4.1998 under Section 6 of the Act making a declaration concerning acquisition of the land of the petitioner. The public purpose of acquisition was construction of sector road and providing services between Sector 9 and 10, Gurgaon. It has also not been disputed that on 15.7.1999, award No.7 was passed and compensation in CWP No.15254 of 2009 -2- respect of the acquired land was disbursed to the land owners as per the averments made in para 4 of the petition. The petitioner has even sought reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was decided by the Learned District Judge in their favour on 27.10.2008 (Annexure P-2). It is appropriate to notice that the petitioner had filed CWP No.8095 of 1998, which was disposed of on 22.3.1999 granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation which was to be considered by the respondents as per law. This Court has observed that after making of the representation, if it was found that the land under the industrial unit belonging to the petitioner could be accommodated then the matter was required to be considered by the Appellate Authority (Annexure P-3). Accordingly, the petitioner made a representation to the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana requesting the release of the factories in favour of the petitioner which did not create any hindrance to the proposed connecting road from Sector 9 to 10, Gurgaon. Although, the petitioner had earlier filed a representation but in pursuant to the orders issued by this Court, another representation was made on 30.12.1998 (Annexure P-4). The case of the petitioner is that after about 10 years of making of representation, no information was sent to the petitioner about the status of its property. However, the petitioner was informed on 30.4.2009 that the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon had forwarded no objection report dated 13.7.1999 to the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana after seeking fresh report from the Land Acquisition Officer, Gurgaon and District Town Planner, Gurgaon specifying that the land of the four factories leaving the area coming under 30 mtr. wide road and 20 mtrs wide green belt may be considered by the Government for release and the office of the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon would have no objection (Annexure P-6). However, the petitioner remained silent from 1999 till the date of filing of this petition in 2009. CWP No.15254 of 2009 -3- We have closely examined the paper book and found that the petitioner did not take advantage of any report made in its favour in 1999. It has in fact allowed the award to be passed on 15.7.1999 and also sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Additional District Judge decided the reference on 27.10.2008 in its favour. In the aforesaid circumstances, the power to release the land vested in the respondent- State under Section 48 stood exhausted on the passing of the award in 1999. There is colossal delay in approaching this Court. The rights of third parties have already come in. It is not possible even to entertain this petition, as the property/land has vested in the respondent-State free from all encumbrances. The de-notification of the land in such circumstances is wholly impermissible as has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mandir Shree Sitaramjit @ Shree Sitaram Bhandar Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and others, AIR 2005 SC 3581. Similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in para 19 of the judgment in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593 and in Printers (Mysore) Ltd. Vs. M.A. Rasheed (2004) 4 SCC 460. Therefore, there is no possibility of issuance of any direction to the respondents for de-notifying the land/property of the petitioner from acquisition. The writ petition is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE February 26, 2010 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Vt JUDGE