IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2994 of 2006 Date of Decision: July 8, 2008 Mange Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing notification dated 27.11.2003 (P-1), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 24.11.2004 (P-3), issued under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner has claimed that he is owner in possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 281/223 Khatoni No. 327, Khasra No. 310/1/11 (0 Bigha 2 Biswa 6 Biswansi), situated in the revenue estate of Village Islampur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It has been further claimed that the petitioner has constructed a residential house on the land in question in the years 1995-96 and residing there with his family. C.W.P. No. 2994 of 2006 2. When the matter came up for consideration on 28.2.2006, a Division Bench of this Court has stayed the dispossession of the petitioner in terms of order passed in another similar petition bearing CWP No. 8224 of 2005. However, during the pendency of the petition, the claim made by the petitioner for release of land has been considered by the State Government. To that effect, an affidavit of the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, has been filed alongwith Annexure R-1 disclosing that the prayer made by the petitioner for releasing the land from acquisition could not acceded to, inasmuch as, the land belonging to the petitioner falls in green belt and service road. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, we are of the considered view that there is no possibility of releasing the land from acquisition as the land belonging to the petitioner falls in green belt and service road. Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. However, since it is admitted position that the residential house has been constructed by the petitioner much prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, it is expected that the respondents would consider the case of the petitioner for his rehabilitation in accordance with the policy of the State and law. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) July 8, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 2