CWP No. 2824 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CWP No. 2824 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Inderjeet ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehinder Singh Sullar Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Rita Kohli, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. H.S. Riar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral). The solitary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the entire acquisition proceedings stand vitiated on account of the fact, that the petitioner was not afforded a hearing, inspite of the petitioner having filed objections under Section 5A of the land acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the fact, that grant of an opportunity of hearing is mandatory in terms of the provisions of Section 5A of the Act. Additionally, it is the submission of CWP No. 2824 of 2009 2 the learned counsel for the respondents, that factually hearing was granted to the petitioner by the Land Acquisition Collector before he disposed of the objections filed by the land owners. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties perused the official record pertaining to the acquisition under reference. It emerges therefrom, firstly, that the signatures of the petitioner and the other land owners were obtained by the Land Acquisition Collector at the time of disposal of the objections filed by the land owners. Secondly, the Land Acquisition Collector expressly noticed, that each of the land owners who had appeared for hearing, did not raise any other plea besides those depicted in the objections filed by them. In fact, it stands noticed that they reiterated the pleas raised by them in their objections during the course of hearing granted to them Thirdly, the order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector noticed and dealt with all the objections raised by the land owners (who had filed objections) while passing his order under Section 5A of the Act. Inspite of the fact, that the position depicted in the foregoing paragraph is not disputed, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no order available on the record of the case, depicting a direction at the hands of the Land Acquisition Collector for effecting service on the land owners. It is also the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that there is no report of any process server, or any other person deputed to effect service on the land owners, depicting that service had actually been effected. And finally, there is no order on the record of the case noticing, that the land owners who had filed objections, had been served. It is, therefore, contended by the learned CWP No. 2824 of 2009 3 counsel for the petitioner, that the record produced in Court today, is not sufficient to record a finding to the effect, that the petitioner and the other land owners were served, and further the fact, that the petitioner and the other land owners who had filed objections were heard. It is not possible for us to accept the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once it is conceded, that the signatures of the land owners, including the petitioner, are available on the record of the Land Acquisition Collector, it necessarily has to be inferred, that the petitioner and the other land owners who had filed objections, were present before the Land Acquisition Collector, so as to make their submissions in furtherance of the objections filed by them under Section 5A of the Act. The aforesaid inference is also based on the fact, that there is no occasion for the land owners to be present before the Land Acquisition Collector. There is also no other reason for them to affix their signatures in the records of the Land Acquisition Collector, except to record their presence during the course of hearing afforded to them. It is, therefore, not possible for us to conclude, in the absence of any cogent reasons to the contrary, that the Land Acquisition Collector falsely recorded, that all the land owners who had filed objections, had been heard, and that, they reiterated the objections filed by them in writing under Section 5A of the Act. Additionally, since all the objections raised by the petitioner have admittedly been dealt with by the Land Acquisition Collector while passing the order under Section 5A of the Act, which was forwarded to the State government for its consideration, we are satisfied, that the procedure envisaged under Section 5A of the Act, was duly complied with. No other submission was advanced at the hands of the learned CWP No. 2824 of 2009 4 counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant writ petition, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( Mehinder Singh Sullar ) Judge 14.10.2009 sk.