CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1790 OF 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: January 31 , 2011. Parties Name M/S Gulmohar Finance Ltd. and another ...PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Haryana etc. ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. Brijender Chahar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate, for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) on June 2, 2009, proposing to acquire land in many villages including 263 Acres of land, situated in village Ullawas. The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, to utilise the same for residential sectors 58 to 63 and residential commercial sectors 65 to 67 in Gurgaon, as shown in the development plan prepared under the Haryana Urban CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1790 OF 2011 -2- Development Authority Act, 1977. Further challenge has been laid to a notification issued under Section 6 of the Act on May 31, 2010, showing intention of the authorities to acquire 166.44 Acres of land. As per admitted facts on record, the petitioners did not file any objection under Section 5-A of the Act to the proposed acquisition within the period of limitation. Objections were filed only on January 28, 2010. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that right given to a land owner under the provisions of Section 5A of the Act, is akin to the fundamental rights and denial of that right to a land owner is a clear violation of his right to object to the acquisition. It is necessary for the Land Acquisition Collector to apply his mind to the objections filed by a land-owner and then form an opinion recommending acquisition or otherwise of the land subject matter of acquisition. It is further contention of counsel for the petitioner that in this case, objections filed by the petitioners were rejected by the Land Acquisition Collector vide order dated November 25, 2010, by passing a non-speaking order. Relevant portion of the order reads as under: “Subject: Objection under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act notified on LAC (G) NTLA2009/1505 dt. 2.6.2009 Ms. Gulmohar Finance Ltd. With reference to your application dated 11.2.10 on the above mentioned subject. You are hereby informed that your application for release of land vide said letter has been rejected by the department after consideration. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1790 OF 2011 -3- You are accordingly informed.” Admittedly, objections were filed by the petitioners beyond the period of limitation. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on June 2, 2009 and objections were filed on January 28, 2010. Petitioner No. 1 is a Company and petitioner No. 2 is its Director/ authorised signatory. Vide the notification in question more than 1000 Acres of land was proposed to be acquired. Wide publicity was given to the notification, as per provisions of Section 4 of the Act by making publication in the two newspapers and also by effecting proclamation in the locality. As such, it is not in dispute that publication of the notification was to the notice of the land owners. It is further case of the petitioners that in many cases, on applications moved by the Builders/ land owners, after issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, their land was released from acquisition. In the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act on January 28, 2010, not a word has been said by the petitioners as to what prevented them from filing the objections in time. It is not even mentioned that there was no proper publication of the notification in the locality. At the time of arguments except placing reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katji and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353, no explanation for delay was offered by the counsel for the petitioner. We are of the view that in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, ratio of the said judgment is not CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1790 OF 2011 -4- applicable. The order passed by the Collector on November 25, 2010, is in response to an application moved by the petitioners on February 11, 2010. That application is also not available on the record. In the order passed, it is only said that after considertion, application of the petitioners for release of the land from acquisition has been rejected. Once it is proved on record that the objections were filed after the expiry of limitation period, nothing remained with the Collector to opine as to whether acquisition is justified or not as the recommendation has already been sent by him. Further contention of counsel for the petitioners that a vast track of land was released from acquisition and by not giving that very relief to the petitioners, a grave injustice has been done. To say so, reference has been made to the site plan Annexure P-7 on record. It is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the land shown in camel colour has been released from acquisition, that the land with purple colour is going to be released , that the applications to grant licences to develop the colonies are pending, that petitioners' land is shown in pink colour and that the only land shown in the white colour is subject matter of acquisition. There is nothing on record to show that land of the owners/ Builders was released contrary to the provisions of the State Government policy dated October 26, 2007. Petitioners have not alleged that they also moved any application in terms of the above said policy. So far as the land shown in purple colour is concerned, it is only said that the State is going to release the land in favour of the land owners arbitrarily. There is nothing on record to show that any application is pending, when the same was moved and whether application, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1790 OF 2011 -5- if any moved, is in conformity with the policy of the State Government or not. In view of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3822, the objections having been filed at a belated stage, this writ petition cannot be entertained. It is further contention of counsel for the petitioners that after release of the land as depicted in camel colour and the land which is going to be released, as shown in purple colour, it will not possible to develop rest of the area in a planned manner. We are not in agreement with the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners. The land sought to be acquired was proposed to be used for residential and commercial sectors in terms of the master plan prepared by the authorities. In the site plan Annexure P-7, existence of the roads and other amenities is shown. Even if the area under those roads etc. fall within the licenced area, it is mandatory for the land owners, in whose favour land has been released, to carve out those roads as per law. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge January 31, 2011. DKC