IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18370 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: October 23, 2008 Sumesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Robin Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has challenged notification issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). It is pertinent to mention that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had filed a suit for possession of the land in question which was contested by the respondent State. It was alleged in the suit that the respondent State has illegally dispossessed the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The respondent State contested the claim made by them and asserted to be owner by way of adverse possession. The suit was dismissed by the C.W.P. No. 18370 of 2008 Trial Court holding that they were the owner of the suit land and the respondent State became the owner by adverse possession. However, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was reversed by the Additional District Judge as well as by this Court. The findings recorded by this Court in R.S.A. No. 1471 of 1979, decided on 8.1.1991 (P-1) are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner were the owner and the respondent State of Haryana did not become owner by virtue of adverse possession. Thereafter, the judgment and decree was sought to be executed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The State of Haryana again filed objections which were dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 15.4.1994. Against the aforementioned order the respondent State filed Civil Revision No. 2106 of 1994, which was dismissed on 26.4.2006 (P-3). In the concluding para of the judgment this Court while dismissing the revision petition has observed that the respondent State would be free to acquire the property in dispute as per law. It is thereafter that the present petitioner had purchased this property from their predecessor-in-interest. The State of Haryana has issued the impugned notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(2)(c) of the Act for the purposes of constructing Government Senior Secondary School in Village Sarai Khawaja, Tehsil and District Faridabad. Having heard learned counsel at a considerable length we find that after the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has been declared to be owner of the suit property and their suit for possession was decreed then there cannot be any bar for the respondent State to acquire the land in question for a public purpose. The establishment 2 C.W.P. No. 18370 of 2008 of a educational institution like the School is a public purpose within the meaning of Section 17(2)(b), as per local amendment made in the Act. Moreover, this Court while dismissing Civil Revision No. 2106 of 1994 has granted liberty to the respondent State to acquire the property in dispute as per law. We find no legal infirmity in the course adopted by the respondent State in acquiring the land in dispute. The argument of the learned counsel that dispensing with the filing of objections under Section 5-A of the Act is arbitrary and they could have shown that a school is already in existence on the site failed to impress us. The aforementioned argument deserve to be out- rightly rejected because while dismissing R.S.A. No. 1471 of 1979 on 8.1.1991, this Court has recorded categorical finding that there was no evidence showing any construction on the suit land. Once this is the position then no argument on that account could be raised. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. For the reasons aforementioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) October 23, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3