CWP No. 17307 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 17307 of 2011 Date of decision 15.9.2011 Kishore Chhabra . Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. SK Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 17.8.2010 (P.26) passed by the respondents rejecting the representation made by the petitioner concerning release of his land from acquisition. It is appropriate to mention that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') was issued on 9.11.1992 (P.3). The petitioner filed objections under Section 5 A of the Act for releasing his land alongwith his brother from acquisition. The respondent- State issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 6.11.1993 (P.6). 2. It has come on record that the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15960 of 1995 challenging the aforesaid notification primarily on the ground that objections filed by him under Section 5 A of the Act were not disposed of by giving him an opportunity of hearing. It was also alleged that the respondent- State had adopted pick and choose policy by releasing the constructed area belonging to influential land owners and CWP No. 17307 of 2011 2 acquiring the building of the petitioner. It has remained undisputed that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed on 24.10.1997 on the ground that no objections under Section 5 A of the Act were ever filed by him. The petitioner has claimed that even after the dismissal of the petition, actual physical possession of the property continues to be with him. Even the land belonging to his brother was in his possession as he suffered a decree on 1.10.1994 in his favour. It is claimed that the petitioner is still carrying on his business under the name and style of Haryana Feed Mills on the site and the electricity connection stands in his name. He is paying the electricity bills regularly. According to the petitioner his land falls in development plan and is situated in the industrial zone and therefore it would conform to the zonal land. 3. On 17.12.2008, the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and the Land Acquisition Collector issued public notice for the information of the general public that the auction of old buildings including bricks, wooden brackets, doors etc situated at acquired land for Sectors 23,3, 7 and Rajiv Gandhi Education City, Sonepat would take place on 19.12.2008 at 11.00 AM in the office of the Estate Officer, Sector 15, Sonepat. The petitioner again filed CWP No. 21378 of 2008 before this Court for withdrawing the aforesaid notice alleging that it was patently wrong, illegal, arbitrary, malafide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The letter dated 22.6.2009 sent by the HUDA showing the existence of the factory of the petitioner in running condition was placed on record alongwith the policy of the State Government. He has also made representation to the respondent- State. In view of the pendency of his representation he withdrew CWP No. 21378 of 2008 and the Division Bench ordered the writ CWP No. 17307 of 2011 3 petition to be dismissed as withdrawn on 23.2.2010. On 17.8.2010 (P.26) his request for release of the land was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court again through the instant petition. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 5. It has remained undisputed before us that Civil Writ Petition No. 15928 of 1995 filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 24.10.1997 on the ground that no objections under Section 5 A of the Act were filed by the petitioner. Admittedly that order has attained finality and by no stretch of imagination any second writ petition would be maintainable. The only course available to the petitioner was to challenge that order before any higher Court. Moreover, the subsequent petition bearing CWP No. 21378 of 2008 was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.2.2010.Even no permission was obtained to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. There is no remedy available to the petitioner in so far as this Court is concerned. The secon petition is barred and the principle of res-judicaa would apply. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgement of 5 Judge Bench of this Court in Teja Singh v. U.T. Administration 1982 PLR 160. 6. The argument that possession of the land is in the name of the petitioner is wholly without any substance because at the time of announcing the award, the possession is always taken. There is nothing to the contrary shown to us. The continuation of possession with the petitioner would not confer any legal right on him to claim that possession by the respondent- State had not been taken. The well known method of taking possession in such like cases is to make entries in the revenue record and by visiting the site. In that regard, reliance may be placed on the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Balmokand Khatri CWP No. 17307 of 2011 4 Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of Punjab and others (1996) 4 SCC 212. Repelling the similar contention, their Lordships have observed as under: “5. Under these circumstances, merely because the appellant retained possession of the acquired land, the acquisition cannot be said to be bad in law. It is then contended by Shri Parekh that the appellant-Institution is running an educational institution and intends to establish a public school and that since other land was available, the Government would have acquired some other land leaving the acquired land for the appellant. In the counter-affidavit filed in the High Court, it was stated that apart from the acquired land, the appellant also owned 482 canals 19 marlas of land. Thereby, it is seen that the appellant is not disabled to proceed with the continuation of the educational institution which it seeks to establish. It is then contended that an opportunity may be given to the appellant to make a representation to the State Government. We find that it is not necessary for us to give any such liberty since acquisition process has already been completed.” 5. Banking upon the aforesaid observations when we examine the facts of the present case then no doubt is left that possession is deemed to have been taken and his continuing with physical possession would not confer any right whatsoever upon the petitioner. The writ petition is infact mis-use of the process of the Court and does not warrant admission. Accordingly the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Acting Chief Justice (Gurdev Singh) 15.9.2011 Judge okg