CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10776 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 11 , 2011. Parties Name Sunder 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. Raj Kumar Rana, Advocate, for the petitioners Ms. Palika Monga, D.A.G., Haryana, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have claimed the following relief: “i) quash the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 25.6.2002, Annexure P-3, Land CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10776 OF 2010 -2- Acquisition Notice dated 29.6.2002 (Annexure P-4) , rapat Rojnamcha for the year 2001-02 (Annexure P-5), notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 26.6.2002 (Annexure P-6), Land Acquisition Notice dated 1.7.2002 (Annexure P-7), and Rapat Rojnamcha for the year 2001-02 (Annexure P-8); ii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.” When notice of motion was issued on June 28, 2010, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court: “ Counsel for the petitioners states that though the land was acquired in the year 2002 by invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), yet even by now possession has not been taken by the department. By making reference to the judgment of this Court passed in CWP No.16832 of 2003 on 18.1.2010, counsel states that the notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 25.6.2002 and declaration made thereafter on 29.6.2002 were quashed. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that under that very notification, land of the petitioners cannot be acquired. Counsel further submits that the petitioners have received compensation only qua structures over their land and not for the land in question. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10776 OF 2010 -3- Notice of motion for 23.8.2010. Dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed till further orders.” It is stated by counsel for the petitioners that once acquisition of a part of the land has been held to be bad, the land owned by the petitioners cannot be put to acquisition. To know the factual position at the spot, we passed the following order on January 20, 2011: “At the time of arguments, Mr. R.K.Rana, Advocate, counsel for the petitioners has placed on record certain documents along with an affidavit, which are taken on record. Copy thereof has been supplied to the counsel opposite. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana is directed to verify the facts stated. She is also directed to get the report from the field staff as to whether the houses shown in the photographs (Annexure P-13) situated in the land are under acquisition or not and further whether the land of the petitioners, if taken possession, after acquisition was put to any use or not. Adjourned to 31.01.2011. Copy of the order be given to the state counsel under the signatures of Court Secretary of this Court.” In response thereto, copy of the letter dated May 4, 2011, from the office of Director General, Urban Estates Department, Haryana, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10776 OF 2010 -4- addressed to the office of Advocate General, Haryana, along with annexures was put on record, in which explanation was given as to under what circumstances land could not be used and further for what purpose it cannot be utilised now. Documents placed on record indicate that vide notification under challenge, the land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, for construction of water works in Sector 6, Jind. Award was passed on January 22, 2004. The Land Acquisition Collector also made assessment regarding value of the existing structures, for which compensation was received by the petitioners. If that is so, possibly they cannot lay challenge to the acquisition of their land. In the letter dated May 4, 2011, it has been stated as under: “It is informed that the detail of construction on the land of each petitioner has been given in the enclosed list submitted by the field staff of the O/o Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar. The built up structures are existing only on the land of petitioner No. 1 to 5, 6,9, 11 to 15 and 18 to 24. The award of the land was announced on 22.1.2004 and the possession was handed over to HUDA and hence, the structures are located on the completely acquired land which is a part of Water Works, Jind. The petitioner of the above said CWP has filed the writ petition after award. However, due to litigation on this/ adjoining land, the further construction works could not take place on this acquired land. As per report of SEN-HUDA , Division No. II, Hisar, the land measuring 29 acres which was acquired for Water Works, Jind, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10776 OF 2010 -5- has been put to use and two members of raw water storage tanks, one 10 MLD (Million Litres per day) Water Purification Plant , one 5.25 Lacs gallon pure water storage tank, one pump house and two numbers of raw water and clear water pump well have already been constructed on the acquired land. Rest of the construction for Water Works, Jind could not be completed as there were houses over the land acquired. Further, the land in dispute in the present Civil Writ Petition has not been put to any construction which is needed for the construction of the remaining Water Works. A copy of report sent by XEN-HUDA, Hisar vide his letter dated 24.3.2011 alongwith status of construction works completed/ to be completed/ undertaken at site marked in the Shajra Plan. A shajra plan showing the construction of the petitioners on the disputed land supplied by Land Acquisition Officer, Hisar is also enclosed. You are requested to kindly to apprise the Hon'ble Court accordingly about the said status and get the CWP dismissed on the date fixed i.e. 9.05.2011.” It is specifically stated that the land is still needed to execute the work, for which it was acquired. Detail as to how it will be used is also given in the letter, mentioned above. Photographs on record also indicate that the work of construction is going on. Site plan placed on record depicts land owned by the petitioners, can easily be amalgamated with the main CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10776 OF 2010 -6- chunk of land, for construction of water works thereon. Otherwise also, having acquiesced their right in not filing writ petition at a proper time, the petitioners cannot be permitted to do so after so many years and in view of the ratio of judgment in Sawaran Lata etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, this petition cannot be entertained. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 11, 2011. DKC