IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.467 of 2011 Date of decision: 16.02.2011 Gurdial Singh and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification, issued on 15.1.2008 (P10), proposing to acquire 272.89 acres of land, which includes about 12 kanla 4 marla land owned by the petitioners. Further challenge is to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act on 14.1.2009 (P13), showing an intention of the authorities to finally acquire the land, mentioned above. Still further, notice issued under Section 9 of the Act on 14.12.2010 is also under challenge. In this case, award was passed on 12.1.2011. By making reference to the photographs on record (P12) and receipts issued by the Municipal Committee (P4-Colly.), an attempt was made to show to us that the construction was in existence before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act on 15.1.2008. To support above said contention, further reference was made to notices issued by the authorities under Civil Writ Petition No.467 of 2011 Section 12(2) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (in short, the Act), asking the petitioners to demolish construction raised unauthorizedly. Those notices were issued in the year 1998 and 2003 (P7 to P9). Heard counsel for the petitioners. When this matter came up for hearing before us, taking note of the photographs, which clearly show that the construction raised is new one, we orally asked the State counsel to get information regarding existence of the construction at the time when notification was issued. Today letter from the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, addressed to the Advocate General Haryana dated 15.2.2011 has been put on record. Site plan, area of the land and observations made by the Land Acquisition Collector at the time when acquisition was under process have also been placed on record. By making reference to the site plan, it is stated that part of the land owned by the petitioners fall in the green belt next to the sector roads and by making reference to the recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector, it is mentioned that at the time when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, only temporary construction was in existence. To know veracity of the averments made by the petitioners and stand taken by the authorities, we asked counsel for the petitioners to refer to the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act, which is available on record as Annexure P11. In the objection/application filed on 13.2.2008, it was nowhere stated that any construction existed in the land owned by the petitioners. Not a word in that regard has been stated. Otherwise also, conduct of the petitioners is such that they do not deserve any concession from this Court. Admittedly and as per knowledge of the petitioners their land falls in the controlled notified area 2 Civil Writ Petition No.467 of 2011 as per provisions of the Act. When without getting any permission from the authorities, they started raising construction, notice was issued to them to stop construction in the year 1998. May be at that time, they stopped it. Thereafter, again they made an attempt in the year 2003. Again notice was sent ordering demolition of the construction. It appears that the temporary construction was demolished at that time. Thereafter, again some temporary construction was raised, which was noticed by the Land Acquisition Collector when recommendation was made to acquire the land, in the year 2008. The petitioners are so courageous that after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, they raised full-fledged building in the land, which was subject matter of acquisition. This fact is fortified on perusal of the receipts put on record (P4), which were issued by the Municipal Committee, assessing some house tax etc. in the year 2009-2010. To support that construction was in existence, reference was made to an electricity bill for the year 1999. No benefit of the same can be given to the petitioners because from that bill, it cannot be visualized whether this is for the building under dispute and furthermore, it is very old. It appears that this electricity connection might have been obtained for the construction, which was unauthorizedly raised and it was ordered to be demolished in the year 2003. Counsel for the petitioners states that in terms of the Policy dated 26.10.2007, construction raised, is liable to be regularized. We are not inclined to accept this contention because as per that Policy, only construction which was in existence before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, can be considered for release, if it does not obstruct over-all planning. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that construction was in existence when notification under Section 4 of the 3 Civil Writ Petition No.467 of 2011 Act was issued and furthermore, part of the land falls in green belt next to the sectors dividing road. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 16.02.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4