CWP No. 21173 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 21173 of 2008 Date of decision 18 .12.2008 Jagdish Chander Dhawan ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to refrain from taking possession of land bearing khasra No. 19/1(7-5) and 19/2 (0-4) situated within the revenue estate of Tarf Makdoom Jagdan, District Panipat. The petitioner has claimed that the aforesaid land has never been acquired by initiation of proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A further prayer has also been made that the representation made by the petitioner be decided in that regard. It is not disputed that the respondent- State of Haryana issued a notifications dated 23.2.1989 and 22.2.1990 ( Annexures P. 1 and P.2) under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act to acquire the land of Patti Insar and Patti Makdom for the public purpose namely for the development and utilisation CWP No. 21173 of 2005 2 of land as residential and commercial areas of Sector 17, Panipat. The petitioner submitted objections under Section 5 A of the Act asserting that the construction has already been raised on some part of the area measuring 8000 sq. ft. The petitioner has claimed that khasra No. 19/1(7-5) and 19/2 (0-4) were never part and parcel of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act which should have been included in the acquired land later. He has further asserted that the petitioner has now been dispossessed from the aforesaid khasra number which could not be done as the aforesaid land was never part and parcel of acquisition proceedings initiated by issuance of notifications on 23.2.1989 and 22.2.1990. The petitioner filed CWP No. 1926 of 1992 challenging the aforesaid notification which was allowed on 26.11.1996 ( Annexure P.4) only to the extent that the respondents were to release the actual constructed area with proportionate open area from the acquisition. It is also conceded that the land of the petitioner measuring 106.23 sq. yds was released from acquisition. The petitioner then filed LPA No. 453 of 1996 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.11.1996. The appeal was disposed of on 20.4.2006 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for release of land keeping in view the latest policy. The order passed by the Letters Patent Bench on 20.4.2006 reads as under: “ CORAM; THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. H.S.BEDI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. M.S.Khaira, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Avinashi Singh, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Rajeev Kwatra, Sr. DAG Hy. Mr. Khaira, the learned senior counsel states that the appellant would be satisfied if his case for release of land is considered keeping in view the latest policy. We accordingly CWP No. 21173 of 2005 3 issue a direction in the above terms. We make it clear that even if the land is not released, the petitioner will not be entitled to challenge this matter in any court of law. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 20.4.2006 Sd/- H.S. Bedi, Acting Chief Justice Sd/- Ranjit Singh, Judge” Thereafter representation made by the petitioner was rejected. In the instant petition the claim made by the petitioner is that since no acquisition proceedings were initiated in respect of Khasra No. 19/1(7-5) and 19/2(0-4) he cannot be dispossessed. The matter came up for consideration on 17.12.2008 when the counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment to study the legal position by stating that although khasra no. 19 as a whole has been notified by giving full detailed particulars in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act (Annexure P.1) on 23.2.1989 as well as in the declaration made on 22.2.1990 ( Annexure P.2) yet a further fragment of khasra in parts was also required to be notified which is signified in the revenue record as Khasra Nos. 19/1 and 19/2. His argument was that the details of further fragmented khasra Nos. 19/1 and 19/2 were also required to be given and mentioning of khasra no. 19 as a whole was insufficient to acquire the land and therefore it must be concluded that no notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in respect of the afore-mentioned two khasra numbers were ever issued. At the hearing today, learned counsel has re-asserted his argument and submitted that mere mention of Patti Insar and Patti Makdo, Panipat in khasra no.19 in two notifications would not amount to acquire the part of the land which is described in the revenue record as Khasra Nos. CWP No. 21173 of 2005 4 19/1 and 19/2. After hearing learned counsel at some length we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant petition. The respondents issued notification under Section on 23.2.1989 by giving details of the land which was to be acquired. Details in respect of the petitioner's land as mentioned in the specification which included the land of Patti Makdo measuring 90.36 acres. The land of the petitioner has been described to be falling in khewat No.10 being part of khasra no.19 which would include even various parts of that khasra number like Khasra Nos. 19/1 and 19/2 which belonged to the petitioner. Once the respondents have notified the whole khasra number and the land comprised in that khasra number is to be acquired as a whole then there is no room for any one to doubt that any part of the land from the whole khasra number is not to be acquired. Wherever the whole khasra number is not intended to be acquired the respondents have specified the same but wherever the whole khasra number is sought to be acquired then notification in respect of the whole khasra number has been issued. This is sufficient notice to every one who were the owners or co-sharers in that land. The petitioner was fully aware of the acquisition proceedings and had challenged the same. The acquisition proceedings have been completed long back by announcing the award and taking possession. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the land of the petitioner has been acquired especially when he has himself challenged the notifications and has been benefited by the judgements issued by this Court on 26.11.1996 and the order passed by the LPA Bench on 20.4.2006 ( Annexures P.4 and P.6 respectively). We find no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. CWP No. 21173 of 2005 5 (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jora Singh) 18.12.2008 Judge okg