IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 397 of 2010 Date of Decision: January 13, 2010 Narinder Kumar Gupta and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Samir Rathaur, Advocate, for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against notification dated 14.11.2008 (P-5) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). A perusal of the notification shows that the land is being acquired on the request made by the Market Committee, Ismailabad, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 34(1) of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961. The public purpose disclosed in the said notification is that the land is required for construction of Additional Grain Market of Thol. After filing of objections under Section 5A of the Act, declaration has been issued under Section 6 for acquiring the land on 4.11.2009 (P-7). The only ground pressed to challenge the aforesaid notifications is that the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board-respondent No. 2 (for brevity, ‘the Board’) has framed a policy with regard to development of Mandis CWP No. 397 of 2010 (P-1). In para 2 of the policy parameters describing the distance between two principal market yards has been given. According to the petitioners until and unless the aforementioned parameters are satisfied, no further acquisition for setting up of another additional grain market at Thol could have been made. According to the learned counsel the distance between the existing Grain Market at Thol is about one kilometer from the proposed grain market sought to be established by acquiring the land. Firstly, the policy (P-1) is for the internal working of the Board. Secondly, there is no legal sanctity provided to the aforesaid policy. In other words, the policy has not been issued binding the Board so as to become justiciable in any Court of law. Moreover, it is an additional grain market being sought to be established and not a new grain market at Thol is being started. Furthermore, when the notifications issued in 2006 and 2007 were challenged, this Court has allowed the writ petition on the affidavit filed by the respondents conceding violation in complying with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. In concluding part of the order dated 4.11.2008 (P-4) passed by this Court in CWP No. 10734 of 2008 (Narinder Kumar Gupta and others v. State of Haryana and others), the respondents were granted liberty to acquire the land afresh in accordance with law. As a sequel to the above discussion, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned notifications. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) 2 CWP No. 397 of 2010 January 13, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3