IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19054 of 2010 Date of decision: 05.05.2011 The Janta Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. …..Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.J.S.Toor, Addl.A.G. Haryana Mr.Manish Bansal, Advocate Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a House Building Society and has filed this writ petition to lay challenge to a notification dated 5.3.2010 (P11), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), proposing to acquire 2.31 acres of land for a public purpose, namely, ‘for development of Master Plan road of Sector 13-17 Panipat’. Further challenge has been made to a declaration dated 18.9.2010 (P12), issued under Section 6 of the Act, finally ordering acquisition of 1.81 acres of land. At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has stated that publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was not proper, as such, the petitioner failed to know about the proposed acquisition and accordingly, objections under Section 5-A of the Act were not filed. The above ground was not taken in the writ petition, CWP No.19054 of 2010 even otherwise, when we look into the contents of the the written statement filed, the contetion raised appears to be incorrect. In the reply filed by respondent No.4, it is clearly stated that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in two daily newspapers i.e. Indian Express on 10.3.2010 and Dainik Tribune(Hindi) on the same date. The proclamation of notification was also done at the spot by beating empty drum in the locality and copy of its substance was also pasted at various places i.e. in the offices of the Director Urban Estates, Haryana, Deputy Commissioner, Panipat and Halka Patwari. No replication has been filed to the written statement to controvert the position explained above. It is an admitted fact that despite proper publication, the petitioner failed to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. If that is so, in view of ratio of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and others, AIR 1999 SC 3822, this writ petition is not maintainable. Otherwise also, there is nothing on record to show that the road alignment was changed to acquire the land owned by the petitioner. The land is going to be acquired as per the master plan. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 05.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 2