CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1699 OF 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: December 16 , 2010. Parties Name Niadar 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. Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana, JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) JUDGMENT By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (in short the Act) issued on April 30, 1986, proposing to acquire 86.48 Acres of land including about 7 Kanals land of the petitioners. Further challenge is to a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, issued on April 28, 1987. It is necessary to mention here that declaration under Section 6 of the Act was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1699 OF 1988 -2- issued to acquire land measuring 84.96 Acres. It is contention of the counsel for the petitioners that in about 4 Kanals of land, the petitioners have constructed their houses and as per policy of the State Government, it could not have been acquired. It is further stated that land of the adjoining land owners was kept out of acquisition, whereas despite construction on the petitioners' land, the said relief was not granted to them. By stating that action of the authorities is discriminatory, prayer has been made to quash the notifications, mentioned above. Shri Sehgal, who has put in appearance on behalf of the State, mentioned that the construction, raised by the petitioners, was noted by the Land Acquisition Collector and on account of that about 9 Marlas of land, where construction existed, was released from acquisition. Rest of the vacant land was ordered to be acquired. Shri Sehgal further states that there is no question of any discrimination because only about 2 Acres of land was left out of acquisition when notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued. That was the land in which construction was in existence. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no case is made out for interference in this case. On August 31, 2010, following order was passed by this Court: “At the time of arguments, it has been brought to our notice that only constructed building of the petitioners was left out of acquisition. It is grievance of the petitioners that for convenient use of the constructed area, no vacant area has been left out. We feel that the grievance raised is perfectly justified. To use CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1699 OF 1988 -3- the constructed portion of the land, some vacant portion is always needed. Mr. Sehgal to get instructions as to whether, it is possible to release some vacant area to the petitioners. A positive approach will be appreciated by this Court.” By passing the above said order, an attempt was made to get released some vacant area so that petitioners can conveniently use their residential house. In response thereto, Shri Sehgal has put on record copy of the communication addressed by the District Town Planner, Faridabad, to the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad, dated September 24, 2010, relevant portion of which reads thus: “With reference to subject referred above, it is informed that the site of the plaintiff has been checked at site vis-a-vis the approved demarcation plan of Sector 46, Faridabad. After examining the approved demarcation plan of Sector 46, Faridabad, vis-a-vis the release land of the plaintiff, it is found that there are roads on three sides of the released land of the applicant and on the 4th side there are 6 marla plots. Hence in view of this office, no additional land should be given to the plaintiff. This is for your information and necessary action please.” As on today, on three sides of the house of the petitioners,which was released from acquisition, there exist roads and on the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1699 OF 1988 -4- 4th side, small plots have been carved out. If that is so, the petitioners can very conveniently use their land as they have direct access on three roads. Award was passed in this case on December 28, 1988. The area regarding which there was no stay might have been utilised by the authorities for the purpose, for which it was acquired. There is nothing on record to show that on the adjoining land , which was released from acquisition, no building was in existence. No case of discrimination against the petitioners is made out. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE December 16 , 2010. DKC