IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22931 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.1.2011 Tejpal @ Hetram 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.Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 2.6.2009, proposing to acquire land measuring 1417.07 acres, for a public purpose i.e. to develop the land for residential sectors 58 to 63 and residential and commercial sectors 65 to 67 in Gurgaon. Further challenge is to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act, declaring an intention of the respondents to acquire land measuring 850.10 acres. It is primary grievance of counsel for the petitioners that despite the Policy being in existence, residential house of the petitioners has been ordered to be acquired. To show the construction, reference was made to the photographs put on record (P3). It is further stated that at present 14 people are residing in that house. Suspecting that the averment made is not correct, following order was passed on 22.12.2010:- Civil Writ Petition No.22931 of 2010 “In this writ petition, it is contention of the petitioners that 14 persons along with their families are residing in the construction, photographs of which have been placed on record at pages 53 and 54 of the paper book. We are not convinced with the contention raised. Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioners wishes to place on record details of the construction.” Matter was adjourned to 12.1.2011, on which date again, a request was made for an adjournment to provide the requisite information. Position is the same even today. Detail of the construction has not been supplied. Furthermore, at the time of arguments, it came to our notice that after receipt of objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act, as per recommendations made by the Land Acquisition Collector, land measuring 1 kanal owned by the petitioner was kept out of acquisition when notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued. This fact of leaving out of land of the petitioners is not mentioned in the writ petition. An attempt has been made to mislead the Court. Such an attitude is not acceptable. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 25.01.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 2