IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1753 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 20.12.2010 Estate Officer, HUDA …..Appellant versus Sanjeev Kumar Jain and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Ajay Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.5305 of 2010 In view of reasons mention in this application, it is allowed and 55 days delay in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.1753 of 2010 (O&M) This appeal is barred by limitation for more than two years. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, no sufficient ground is mentioned to condone the delay. It appears that this appeal has been filed only when a contempt application was filed by the respondents against officers of the appellant. In this application, it is stated that delay was caused on account of filing of an application to recall the order under challenge, in this case. Order passed on that application is not annexed with this application/ appeal. Though there is no ground to condone the delay, yet we decide to take up this matter on merits. LPA No.1753 of 2010(O&M) An attempt has been made to assail judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the facts and the arguments, which were never raised when the matter was heard and decided. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the records that the respondents –land owners filed various writ petitions, laying challenge to the acquisition of their land. To the objections raised in those writ petitions, the appellant specifically averred and alleged that the land is needed for a green belt and also to construct an old age home. Taking note of the same, it was observed as under by the learned Single Judge:- “I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the records including the additional affidavits, refereed to above. In my considered view, the petitioners' contention that with the construction of the elevated Highway or Fly Over, the necessity of providing green belt abutting G.T.Road in Panipat has disappeared, carries no weight and merits rejection. The emission by the vehicular traffic coupled with its rapid growth as a hub of industries, Panipat requires urgent and effective measures before it is totally engulfed with dust and smoke. The Green Belts undoubtedly can serve as lungs and provide cushion to the needed steps. Equally true is the fact that even according to the respondent authorities, the entire lands of the petitioners are not required for developing the green belt. In the absence of any other disclosed public purpose for which the acquired land may be utilized, it appears that while the petitioners' industrial units and/or the ongoing business activities can be effectively saved without compromising with the cause of 'public purpose' 2 LPA No.1753 of 2010(O&M) which is of paramount public importance. What should be the length and width of a green belt or where and how the same is to be developed, is an experts' job. The court, for want of expertise and knowledge, ought to leave this task for the authorities who are obligated to take up such like welfare measures. However, there appears to be some weightage in the petitioners' claim based upon the order dated 29.7.2005 [Annexure P-10] whereby the land of a similarly situated person, namely, Dhara Singh has been released by the respondents. If that land was also forming part of the 'green belt', it is not understandable as to how the green belt can be developed in pieces? All these questions are required to be gone into by the respondent-authorities in an objective and dispassionate manner. However, in order to obviate hardship to the parties and not to leave the things in uncertainty, it is directed that only that part of the petitioners' lands would be acquired or taken into possession which is required for the purpose of developing the green belt. Since the excess land is not proposed to be utilized for any other specified public purpose, no inconvenience would be caused to the respondents nor would the notified public purpose be frustrated if such excess land is released in favour of the petitioners on the same pattern as has been done in the case of Dhara Singh and others. Besides the Green Belt, the respondents will be well within their right to utilize a part of the acquired land of the petitioners where an Old Age Home has been desired to be established. It is made clear that the above-stated additional 3 LPA No.1753 of 2010(O&M) land shall be utilized for the purpose of construction of Old Age Home only and not for any commercial venture. For the reasons aforementioned, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula to constitute a Committee of senior officers to be headed by an officer not below the rank of Administrator, HUDA, who may visit the spot, hear the petitioners' grievance and thereafter redetermine as to how much land is required for the public purpose, i.e., Green Belt or establishment of an Old Age Home. The writ petitions qua the land which is required for the aforementioned purposes shall be taken to have been dismissed, whereas the left out land not required for the aforementioned public purpose shall stand released in favour of the petitioners.” By noting averments made by the appellant that the land is needed for a green belt and to establish an old age home, directions were issued to constitute a Committee to verify as to how much land is needed for those purposes. We are of the opinion that the order passed is perfectly justified. No case is made out for interference. Accordingly, both the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, as also the appeal, are dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 20.12.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 4