IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 4326 of 1993 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 5, 2011 Hans Raj Malik …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE HON'BLE HON'BLE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE RAJI RAJI RAJI RAJIV NARAIN RAINA V NARAIN RAINA V NARAIN RAINA V NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. S.C. Sibal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atul Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. M.M. M.M. M.M. KUMAR, J. KUMAR, J. KUMAR, J. KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing notifications dated 17.5.1990 and 16.5.1991, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) respectively. 2. The petitioner has claimed that he is owner in possession of land comprised in Field No. 4489, 4490, 4491, 4493, 4499/4488, 7346/4487, situated in the revenue estate of Sonepat, Patti Musalmanan, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The aforesaid area is stated to be situated at Pacca road known as Sonepat-Delhi road in the heart of the city, as is sought to be shown from the site plan (P-1). The petitioner has claimed construction of 7 shops in Khasra CWP No. 4326 of 1993 (O&M) 2 Nos. 4490 and 4491. It is claimed that the area was fully developed prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Before raising construction, the site plans were got approved from the Municipal Committee. The area is stated to be covered by the Master Plan of the National Capital Region and the prayer made is to spare the constructed area of the petitioner as per the policy of the State Government. It is alleged that the areas belonging to Binny Motors and Chawla Saw Mill, which are situated nearby, have been released and, therefore, there is hostile discrimination. The petitioner has also raised objections under Section 5-A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector that there was neither any publicity nor any notice to the interested persons, issued with regard to acquisition of their land. 3. On 26.4.1993, while issuing notice of motion this Court also passed the interim direction staying dispossession. Eventually, the writ petition was admitted with a direction that status quo with respect to possession be maintained subject to the condition that the petitioner was not to change the nature of the land as existed on the date of the order i.e. 22.11.1995. 4. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The plea of the petitioner that no public notice by munadi in the locality was issued, has been categorically denied by asserting in para 2 that the substance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was announced loudly by beating empty drum on the spot in the locality. A copy of the substance was also pasted at various places such as office of the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, Manimajra, Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate Haryana, Faridabad, Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat and Halka CWP No. 4326 of 1993 (O&M) 3 Patwari. Even with regard to publication of substance of the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, it has been asserted that the same was pasted at various places and was announced loudly by beating empty drums on the spot and in the locality. The award was announced on 12.5.1993. It has also been denied that there is any hostile discrimination. In para 3 a categorical assertion has been made that the constructed area belonging to the petitioner falling in Khasra No. 4491 has already been released with proportionate open area. A total area of 32.64 acres has been released while issuing declaration under Section 6 of the Act because of the construction, including the constructed area belonging to the petitioner, which was comprised in Khasra No. 4491. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that the respondents have taken a fair stand in the written statement by releasing the constructed area comprised in Khasra No. 4491, situated in the revenue estate of Sonepat, Patti Musalmanan, Tehsil and District Sonepat, along with proportionate open area so as to enjoy the constructed part. There is no specific denial either by filing replication or by showing any document that it has not been done. The only argument raised by Mr. S.C. Sibal, learned senior counsel is that there is no specific mention about the open area released with the constructed area i.e. it is not clear how much open area has been released. It is well known practice in the State of Haryana that when the constructed area is released from acquisition then along with that equivalent proportionate open area is also released. Therefore, there is no ambiguity left, as has been submitted by Ms. Palika Monga, learned Deputy Advocate General, CWP No. 4326 of 1993 (O&M) 4 Haryana. 6. In view of the above, instant petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the constructed area of the petitioner along with proportionate area for enjoyment of the constructed portion, as has been stated in the written statement. To that extent the writ petition would stand allowed. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) Dec Dec Dec December ember ember ember 5, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor