Civil Writ Petition No.1823 of 2009 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1823 of 2009 Date of decision: 11.08.2009 *** Charan Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. P.N.Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The land, particulars whereof are indicated in detail in the course of the petition, was acquired by respondent no.1 in pursuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) which were issued on 26.9.2007 (Annexure P-9) and 25.9.2008 (Annexure P-10) respectively. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioners did not file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Faced with the predicament of having to explain the maintainability of the petition (for want of objections under Section 5-A of the Act) in light of the view obtained by the Apex Court in Talson Real Civil Writ Petition No.1823 of 2009 -2- *** Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2007 (3) RCR Civil page 499, learned counsel vehemently contends that the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners did file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. In that context, the learned counsel invites our attention paragraph 7 of the petition wherein there is an averment that objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed by Ujagar Singh son of Isher Singh i.e. the vendor from whom the petitioners had purchased the land acquired by the respondents. The averment falls short of indicating the timing of purchase which (timing) would, obviously, have relevance to find out whether the transactions aforementioned were prior to the date on which the notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued. In light of the apparent deficiency in the pleadings with regard to the timing of the purchase, learned counsel canvasses before us that the petitioners have made a precise averment that they are in occupation of acquired area since the year 1974 and are, thus, persons interested in the land. In that very context, our attention has also been invited to certain documentation Annexure P-5 to Annexure P-8 which indicate that the petitioners are residents of indicated house numbers in the area of village Islam Nagar, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala. It may be noticed here that Annexures P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8 are the copies of the voter identity cards issued by the Election Commission of India in the name of the petitioners Charan Singh, Dayal Singh, Nirmal Singh and Lambu Ram respectively. Even that averment, and also the documentation relied in support Civil Writ Petition No.1823 of 2009 -3- *** thereof, does not advance the petitioners' plea. In the first instance, it may be pertinent to notice that these voter identity cards are purported to have been issued in the year 1994-95. The contents thereof cannot, thus, buttress the petitioners' case with regard to their being in occupation of residential houses built upon the acquired land since the year 1974. Assuming, for the sake of arguments, that the averment made by the petitioners is correct, the only inference deducible therefrom would be that petitioners acquired title of the land in the year 1974. If that were so, there was no occasion for their predecessor-in-interest/vendor to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The advocated points of view, examine from any angle, do not help the petitioners sustain their claim for invalidation of the impugned acquisition for want of objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Dismissed. (S.D.ANAND) JUDGE August 11, 2009 (J.S.KHEHAR) Pka JUDGE