CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: October 6, 2010. Parties Name Azad Singh Ahlawat etc. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS Union of India etc. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih. PRESENT: Mr. Harsh Kinra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Santosh Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Askshay Bhan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. -HUDA JASBIR SINGH, J. JUDGMENT This order will dispose of six writ petitions bearing No. 111 of 2005, 19310, 19315, 20016, 19829 and 19846 of 2004, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. However, to dictate judgment, facts are being mentioned from C.W.P. No. 111 of 2005. Petitioners in this writ petition , C.W.Ps. No. 19846 and 20016 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2005 -2- of 2004 have laid challenge to a notification dated January 1, 2002 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) proposing to acquire an area measuring 632.28 Acres including land of the petitioners. Further challenge has been laid to declaration dated December 30, 2002 (Annexure P-6) issued under Section 6 of the Act intending to acquire an area measuring 434.68 Acres. The land was sought to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, development of commercial area in Sector 6, Rohtak, by Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short HUDA). Similarly, in C.W.Ps. No. 19315 , 19829 and 19310 of 2004, challenge has been laid to notification issued on January 4, 2002 (Annexure P-3) under Section 4 of the Act proposing to acquire area measuring 409.15 Acres for a public purpose, namely, residential, transport and communication in Sectors 4 and 5, Rohtak, which was to be developed by HUDA. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on December 31, 2002, intending to acquire 356.76 Acres of land. As per admitted facts on record, award regarding first acquisition was passed on December 29, 2004, for an area measuring 409.32 Acres. In the second acquisition, award was passed on the same date for an area measuring 338.91 Acres. As per admitted facts on record, land of the petitioners in this writ petition falls on 45 Meters wide road alignment. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that to save others, alignment of the road was changed to their detriment. It is argued with vehemence that constructed residential houses of many land owners were left out of acquisition. To say CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2005 -3- so, it was stated that when Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on January 1, 2002, proposed land for acquisition was 632.28 Acres. Declaration was issued only for 434.68 Acres and award was passed on December 29, 2004, for an area measuring 409.32 Acres only. By stating as above, counsel argued that as per policy of the State Government, constructed residential houses of the petitioners be also left out of acquisition. He also suggested an alternative route for alignment of the above said Sector road. Shri Kamal Sehgal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, by making reference to the facts on record, has contradicted the arguments, raised by counsel for the petitioners. He has brought it to our notice that except petitioner No. 1 in this writ petition, other petitioners have not filed any objection under Section 5-A of the Act, as such writ petition at their instance is not maintainable. He has further stated that all the petitioners are owners of land measuring 42 Kanals and 4 Marlas only. After hearing their objections, 27 Kanals of land was ordered to be released from acquisition and only 15 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land was ordered to be acquired, which falls in the Sector road alignment. He further argued that the writ petitions having been filed after passing of the award cannot be entertained. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that these writ petitions deserve dismissal. It is an admitted fact that as per development plan for the area, buildings of the petitioners fall in the alignment of 45 Meters wide sector road. After hearing their objections, 27 Kanals of land was ordered to be released. With a view to save buildings of the petitioners, this Court passed the following order on September 16, 2010: CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2005 -4- “At the time of arguments, a site plan has been shown to us, which suggests two alternative connecting roads to the Sector road, which may save the houses of the petitioners. It is not in dispute that a large number of houses/ colonies were released from acquisition to save the construction. If by changing the road alignment a little bit, the purpose can be achieved, it will be highly appreciated. A copy of the site plan showing the proposed two link roads has been given to Shri Bhardwaj, who seeks time to get instructions. Adjourned to September 30, 2010. A copy of this order be supplied to Shri Bhardwaj under signatures of the Court Secretary. A photo copy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.” Today, Shri Sehgal, by making reference to the site plan, has brought it to our notice that the proposed alignment for the sector road , suggested by the petitioners, is not feasible. On one side, there is Railway over bridge and regarding the second proposal, the plots have already been carved out and allotted to various individuals, who may have raised construction thereon. In view of the facts of this case, we are of the view that in such like matters, regarding road alignment etc., the Courts are not supposed to substitute their opinion to the opinion formed by the Experts. Where road is to be constructed, how much will be its width and what will be its alignment, these matters are to be decided by the Engineers. The Courts can CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2005 -5- interfere only in cases where it appears that the plan appears to have been prepared on account of some malafide or is totally absurd and with a view to give benefit to some land owner. In the present case, it is not the situation. At the time of arguments, an attempt was made to show that road alignment has been changed. However, there is nothing on record to prove the above said fact. It has also come on record that taking note of the objections filed by the petitioners, vast track of their land was released from acquisition. If that is so, the petitioners cannot raise any ground of discrimination as has been depicted in this writ petition. At the time of arguments counsel for the petitioners has failed to show that to give benefit to any individual land owner, adjustment was made so far as road alignment is concerned. Not only as above, in view of a fact that most of the petitioners in this case and also in C.W.P. No. 19315 of 2004 have not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act, possibly their writ petitions cannot be entertained in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008(2) SC 280. It is also not in dispute that this writ petition was filed after passing of the award on December 29, 2004. It has rightly been argued by the State counsel that in view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, these writ petitions cannot be entertained. In C.W.P. No. 20016 of 2004, it has been stated by the respondents that the land owned by the petitioners falls in the land reserved for construction of a sports complex in the area, as such, it cannot be released from acquisition. We are satisfied with the explanation given. A CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2005 -6- sports complex is proposed in a compact area and if land of the petitioners, which is falling in between, is released out of acquisition, it will cause obstruction in the proposed development of the area. Similarly, in CWP No. 19846 of 2004, area under construction has been released and vacant land has been proposed to be acquired. We are satisfied with the arrangement suggested by the respondents – authorities. So far as C.W.P. No. 19315 of 2004 is concerned, as per averments made by the respondents, to which there exists no contradiction, building(s) of the petitioners exist in Khasra No. 77//21/2 and the same has been kept out of acquisition. Another piece of land falling in Khasra No. 77//20 falls in the road alignment and as such it has rightly been ordered to be acquired. Similarly, the land, which is subject matter in C.W.P. No. 19829 of 2004 also falls in the road alignment. In C.W.P. No. 19310 of 2004, 8 Kanals of land of the petitioners was proposed for acquisition. However, after hearing their objections, only 3 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land, which falls in the road alignment, was ordered to be acquired. We are satisfied that no injustice has been done to them. In view of facts, mentioned above, all these writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE October 6, 2010. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2005 -7- DKC