COCP No. 1460 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 1460 of 2010 Date of decision:- 12.10.2010 Sahab Singh and others ......petitioners vs. Deep Kaushal ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. G.S. Duhan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Petitioners are the owners of land situated in Rect. No. 163, Killa No. 7, 14 Min total measuring 5 kanal 14 marla. The said land was intended to be acquired vide notification dated 30.6.2006 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act') for extension of bus stand and construction of traffic park at Patti Gadhar/Patti Kaisth Seth, Tehsil and District Kaithal. Petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act, inter alia, pointing out that they have raised dwelling houses consisting of two portion of three rooms, kitchen, one bathroom and one court yard. Subsequently, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 5.12.2006. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the acquisition of land, which was disposed of in view of the averment made in para 6 of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 vide order dated 25.9.2010 passed by this Court. The said order reads as under: - COCP No. 1460 of 2010 -2- “Learned Counsel for petitioners submitted that in view of averment made in para 6 of reply on behalf of respondents' No 1 and 2, nothing survives in this writ petition. The said averment made as: that the houses of the petitioners are being adjusted except the tubewell Room.” Hence, this writ petition is disposed of. Grievance of the petitioners is that though the State has made a statement that the houses of the petitioners are being adjusted, but still the vacant portion in front of the houses has not been left from acquisition and therefore, the statement made before this Court has not been complied with and the said act discloses a civil contempt. The order passed by this Court on 25.9.2010 is of adjustment of the houses of the petitioners. There is nothing on record to show as to what extent vacant land appurtenant to the houses was agreed to be adjusted or the entire land which is the subject matter of acquisition was agreed to be exempted. Therefore, it cannot be said that any part of vacant land could not form part of acquisition. Therefore, it cannot be said that the acquisition of the vacant land by the State amounts to violation of this statement given to this Court. Thus, I do not find that any contempt is directed in the present contempt petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 12.10.2010 preeti