IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5292 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.9.2010 Raj Rani and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.N.K. Banka, Advocate for the petitioners Ms.Shubhra Singh, DAG Haryana Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate for HUDA Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioners’ land measuring 4 bighas 11 biswas was acquired by issuing notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 2.2.1989 and 23.2.1990 respectively. Petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act which did not find favour with the Land Acquisition Collector. Award was passed on 21.2.1992. This writ petition was filed in the year 2010. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court on 25.3.2010:- “Despite raising objection, land of the petitioners was acquired way back in the year 1989. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that after lapse of more than 21 years, the land is still lying vacant. It is further stated that adjoining Civil Writ Petition No.5292 of 2010 land even after passing of award was released to the land owners by the State of Haryana. Counsel for the petitioners specifically states that the petitioners had not received any compensation for the acquired land. By stating as above, prayer has been made that direction be issued to the respondent- State to release their land also.” By making reference to site plan (P4), counsel for the petitioners states that the land falling on three sides of land of the petitioners was released from acquisition. To say that the land was released from acquisition in the year 2007-08 by the authorities, reference has been made to the judgments passed by this Court in Mahalakshmi Spinnders Ltd. & another v. State of Haryana and another (CWP No.5070 of 2007), decided on 4.5.2007 and Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.8329 of 1990), decided on 19.12.2008. Perusal of order dated 19.12.2008 shows that a bunch of writ petitions came up for consideration, in which it was specific grievance of the land owners that in a very discriminatory manner, land of other right holders has been released from acquisition, whereas said relief has not been given to them arbitrarily. By taking note of the same, the bunch of writ petitions was disposed by observing as under:- “For the reasons aforementioned, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula to constitute a Committee of senior officers to be headed by an officer not below the rank of Administrator, HUDA, who may visit the spot, hear the petitioners' grievance and thereafter redetermine as to how much land is required for the public purpose, i.e., Green Belt or establishment of an Old Age Home. The writ petitions qua the land which is required 2 Civil Writ Petition No.5292 of 2010 for the aforementioned purposes shall be taken to have been dismissed, whereas the left out land not required for the aforementioned public purpose shall stand released in favour of the petitioners.” Counsel for the petitioners averred that when they came to know about passing of the order, mentioned above, they also moved applications/ representations (P10 and P12) for release of their land, which were dismissed by passing a non-speaking order on 27.11.2008 (P11). It is specific case of the petitioners and not denied before us by counsel for the respondents that in consequent to the orders passed by this Court in the writ petitions, mentioned above, land of various right holders was released from acquisition. If that is so, we are of the opinion that the petitioners’ representation was supposed to be considered along with the cases of other right holders, whose land was released in consequent to the orders passed by this court, as mentioned above. Representation of the petitioners was dismissed by passing a non-speaking order, which, we are of the opinion, was not justified. In view of facts mentioned above, we dispose of this writ petition by issuing directions to the respondents to re-consider the representations (P10 and P12) filed by the petitioners for release of their land in terms of ratio of the judgments in Mahalakshmi Spinnders Ltd (supra) and Sanjeev Kumar (supra). (Jasbir Singh) Judge 30.09.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3