CWP No. 18996 of 2010 and other connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.11.2010 CWP No. 18996 of 2010 Dharam Singh and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19012 of 2010 Mahender and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19143 of 2010 Bhagwan Dass and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Haryana and others ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 19154 of 2010 Ishwar Singh 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.K.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of CWP No. 18996 of 2010 titled as Dharam Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 19012 of 2010 titled as Mahender and others vs. State of Haryana and CWP No. 18996 of 2010 and other connected cases 2 others, CWP No. 19143 of 2010 titled as Bhagwan Dass and others vs. State of Haryana and others and CWP No. 19154 of 2010 titled as Ishwar Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others. To dictate order, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 18996 of 2010. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have impugned a notification dated 24.12.2007 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') proposing to acquire about 19 Acres of land owned by the petitioners. Further challenge is to a notification dated 23.12.2008 issued under Section 6 of the Act. It is grievance of the petitioners that they had constructed their residential houses in the land in dispute, the buildings of others were kept out of acquisition, however, the same relief was not granted to them without any justification. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, we are not satisfied with the argument raised. Perusal of the objections filed under Section 5-A of the Act clearly indicates that land is agricultural in nature. May be there is a scanty construction, which appears to have been raised with a view to save it from acquisition. Otherwise also, admittedly in this case, Award was passed on 23.06.2010. If that is so, in view of ratio of judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698, M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. CWP No. 18996 of 2010 and other connected cases 3 vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 and Swaran Lata etc. vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664, these writ petitions, at the instance of the petitioners, are not maintainable, which were filed in the month of October, 2010. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE November 11, 2010 pj CWP No. 18996 of 2010 and other connected cases 4