CWP No.1297 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1297 of 2009 Date of decision: 28.1.2009 Rajinder Kumar Jain ...Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and another. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.P.C.Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J. (Oral) 1. This petition seeks a direction for de-notifying the land of the petitioner under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act'). 2. Case of the petitioner is that he being the owner of 1 bigha and 13 biswas of land in village Palsora in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, set up a flour mill after taking permission vide letter dated 26.11.1977. Vide notification dated 8.7.1988, land was sought to be acquired but after considering the objections, the same was de-notified vide notification dated 16.11.1989. Land of the petitioner was again covered in area proposed to be acquired for planned development of 3rd phase Sectors of Chandigarh vide notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 21.11.2005. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A which were considered by the Land Acquisition Collector vide report dated 19.9.2006. The Collector made following observations:- CWP No.1297 of 2009 2 “After seeing the revenue record and spot inspection, I find no merits in the objections raised by the Objectors except the one raised by Simransar Charitable Trust Gurdwara and All India Pingalwara Charitable Society, on the following counts:- 1. The Structures as existed on the site though 10 to 15 years old, had been raised in violation of the Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952. 2. Except khasra numbers 165, 167, 168, 384, 385, 386, 415, 416, 417, 418 which are Baras as per field-book, rest of the khasra numbers are notified under Section 4 in Village Palsora relates to the agricultural land. 3. As per the Periphery Control Act, no commercial activity can be pursued in the Baras as it amounts to change of the land use; 4. The allegation that the Administration has made huge profits out of land acquisition is baseless. Actually, the Administration is not a profit making venture, rather funds generated from the planned development are utilized for the public-utilities like electricity, roads, public-toilets, dumping grounds, sewerage, government schools, Hospitals, Tubewells and community centres etc. Lot of funds are utilized for upkeep and development of gardens and maintenance of ecology. Some land is also allotted at subsidized rates for religious, charitable, community/institutional purposes. Land allotted to educational institution is more subsidized. CWP No.1297 of 2009 3 5. In so far as non-acquisition of the present land through the previous awards is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that previously this land was not notified under Section 4 so there was no question of acquisition of this land in the previous awards. 6. The land which have been acquired in the past is being utilized for the purpose for which it has been acquired after making proper planning/development. 7. With regard to de-notification of the present land, vide notification dated 16.11.1989, it is clarified that de- notification at that point of time does not mean that the land cannot be acquired in future, if need be. 8. The release of Baras/agricultural land in village of Sarangpur, Khudda Lahora, Dadu Majra, Behlana has to be seen from the angle of planned development. The Administration being a welfare State might have decided exempting the land as it might not be coming in the way of planned development.” 3. It was also observed that as the structures existed on the land sought to be acquired though raised in violation of law, the matter with regard to exemption could only be considered by the Government. However, in the final notification dated 25.11.2006, the Administration decided to acquire the land of the petitioner as part of 45.68 acres of land of village Palsora. Thereafter, award dated 24.11.2008 has been made determining the market value of the same. Aggrieved by this, the present petition has been filed on 27.1.2009. CWP No.1297 of 2009 4 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that land of the petitioner was adjoining Phirni of the village and the petitioner had made construction thereon after getting permission. The Administration had by adopting pick and choose policy granted exemption to similarly situated land owners. On 21.9.2005, an order was passed in CWP No. 8157 of 2001 to constitute a High Powered Committee to consider the prayer for exemption of the constructed area of acquired land and same course should have been followed for the petitioner. 6. We do not find any ground to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. 7. It is not disputed that the land has been acquired for public purpose specified in the notification. The petitioner has not challenged the notification dated 25.11.2006 for more than two years and has filed this petition only after making of the award. No policy is shown against acquisition of constructed area. It is also not case of the petitioner that his case has not been considered. Report of the Collector (Annexure P-22) shows detailed consideration of the objections of the petitioner. Mere allegation that some of the acquired land has been released on the ground that the same was covered by construction area is not a ground for issuing mandamus for release of the acquired land. Neither there is any allegation of malafide nor there is any material on the basis of which it can be held that there is a hostile discrimination against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even the agricultural land of some persons has been released which shows discrimination. The release has not been challenged CWP No.1297 of 2009 5 but parity is sought to be claimed with those whose land has been released without showing violation of any right of the petitioner. No illegality with regard to release of the land has been shown which could confer any right on the petitioner. No explanation for more than 2 years of delay in filing of this petition after notification under Section 6 of the Act has been given in the petition. 8. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 28.1.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE