CWP No. 672 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 672 of 2010 Date of decision: 09.12.2010 Shri Raghvendra Sewashram Samiti and another ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS Chandigarh Administration and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Chetan Mittal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the respondents. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash order dated 12.01.2010 (P-19), vide which prayer of the petitioners to release from acquisition, 2 ½ Kanals of land falling in Khasra Nos. 77//7/1, 14/2 was declined. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that in the land in question a religious place is in existence and as per policy of the U.T. CWP No. 672 of 2010 2 Administration, it cannot be acquired. In the alternative, it is prayer of the petitioners that if for the purpose of development of the area, acquisition of that land is necessary, they be allotted another plot of the same size next to the Mandir already existing, on payment of development charges. It is clear from the records that the petitioners, without getting any permission to construct, raised a religious structure in the land falling in Khasra Nos. 83/14/2 and 83/15/2/1. It appears that thereafter applications were moved to get the building regularized. Vide letter dated 09.02.1993 written by the Chief Architect and Secretary, Department of Architecture, Chandigarh Administration to the petitioners' President, it was intimated as under:- “ Your representations mentioned under reference for the construction of Dudhadhari Temple, Satsang Hall, Goshala, Kutia for Maharaj Ji, Toil be etc. have been examined. It has also been observed that the structural work of the temple building has already been constructed at site. It is pointed out that this site falls in the area earmarked for major institution in the Chandigarh Urban Complex Plan. But this area has not so far been acquired and developed. The existing Dudhadhari Temple shall be accommodated in the planning of this area when the whole of the area is acquired and developed for urban use as envisaged in the Chandigarh Urban Complex Plan. In the meantime, you are advised not to undertake the construction of any other building on this site except for internal and external finishing of the Temple only already constructed at site.” CWP No. 672 of 2010 3 It is not in dispute that thereafter when the adjoining land was proposed to be acquired, the land, on which Mandir is in existence, was kept out of acquisition when notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') was issued on 04.04.2000. It appears that thereafter, to acquire a vast track of land including the land, in which Mandir is situated, again a notification was issued on 04.04.2000 under Section 4 of the Act. On an objection raised by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act, land measuring about more than 1 Acre was kept out of acquisition, in which main religious complex is situated. However, land measuring 2½ Kanal falling in Khasra Nos. 77//7/1, 14/2, which is situated at a distance from the main complex, was ordered to be acquired. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.11.2000. Award was passed on 08.11.2002. Neither the notification under Section 6 of the Act nor the Award passed was ever challenged by the petitioners. It appears that thereafter, the petitioners started their efforts to get the land in dispute exempted from acquisition by moving an application under Section 48 of the Act. As per facts on record, at one time, even the compensation amount, which was received earlier by the petitioners, was returned to the authorities. Vide letter dated 28.02.2005, the case of the petitioners was referred to the Finance Department for consideration and the amount received was ordered to be returned to them. Ultimately prayer for exemption of the land was rejected vide the impugned order. We have heard counsel for the parties and have also seen the site plan. It appears that the land, release of which is now sought by the petitioners, is situated at a distance from the main religious complex. If the CWP No. 672 of 2010 4 same is ordered to be exempted from acquisition now, it is going to affect the overall development of the area. Further more, as per facts on record, already more than 1 Acre of land was left out of acquisition, in which initially, structure was raised without getting any permission from the authorities. We feel that the petitioners are not entitled to any further relief. It is also brought to our notice that when objection under Section 5-A of the Act was raised, no prayer was made to release the land in dispute. It is well settled that if a writ petition is filed after passing of an Award, possibly the same cannot be entertained 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. vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280 and Swaran Lata etc. vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1664. Counsel for the petitioners also failed to make out a case of discrimination done to the petitioners. Dismissed. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE December 09, 2010 pj