IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6971 of 2007 Date of decision: 16.7.2010 Smt.Ram Devi and another …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Dr.Shyamlha Pappu, Senior Advocate with Mr.R.Krishnaamorthi and Mr.Gaurav Goel, Advocates for the petitioners Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), proposing to acquire 88 kanalas 10 marlas of land, including land of the petitioners. Further challenge is to the declaration issued under section 6 of the act on 28.3.2007. CWP No.6971 of 2007 In this writ petition, it is contention of the petitioners that they are owners of land bearing Khasra Nos.23//21 (8-0) and 40//1/2 (4-11). This area was acquired to provide access to rest of the area acquired for setting up of the judicial complex. It was argued before a Division Bench of this Court that the government may retain land to provide the access road measuring 15 karams and rest of the area be released in favour of the petitioners. This argument did not find favour with the Division Bench and on 10.5.2007, this writ petition was dismissed by observing as under:- “The petitioners’ land measuring about 13 Kanals 12 Marlas has been acquired to provide path leading to the Judicial Court Complex and residential houses of the Judicial Officers at Ganaur. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the path earmarked is too wide, much lesser area of land can provide the required path. Furthermore he relies upon recommendation of the Land Acquisition Collector in this regard. Lastly, it has been submitted that the acquired land had been mortgaged with a bank as collateral security for loan of Rs.1 crore advanced to the principal debtor. If the land is acquired the petitioners would have no means of making money from farming the land for returning the loan. We have seen the site plan of the property Annexure P-6 and find that the path provided is 15 karms wide and it leads to Judicial Complex and residential houses of the judicial officers. We feel this path cannot be made narrower as that will deprive it of the necessary green belt and foot path etc. 2 CWP No.6971 of 2007 We do not find any merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same.” It is an admitted fact that the petitioners challenged the above said order by filing SLP No.2513 of 2008, which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 10.3.2008, by passing the following order:- “On the prayer of Dr.Shyamlha Pappu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to apply for clarification/modification of the impugned order before the High Court.” Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application with a prayer that excess area, other than the area needed for providing access road to the judicial complex, be released in their favour. The said application came up for hearing before a division bench of this Court on 7.5.2010 and the order passed by the division bench on 10.5.2007, was recalled and the writ petition was ordered to be heard on merits. We have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the site plan put on record by the respondents. The same has been taken on record as Ex.A1. The petitioners are the owners of land bearing Khasra No.23//21 (8-0) and 40//1/2 (4-11). Khasra No.40//1/2 touches the main road, rest of the area starts thereafter. Site plan further reveals that if area to the extent of only 15 karams is acquired to provide access to the rest of the land acquired, the entire ambiance of the Judicial Complex will be ruined, which we feel is not desirable. Furthermore the area, after carving of the road (rest of the area), can be used for parking and other purposes, as may be felt necessary by the authorities concerned. The land can be kept for future expansion also. We are not convinced with arguments raised by counsel for 3 CWP No.6971 of 2007 the petitioners that excess area has been acquired for construction of Judicial Complex. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 16.07.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 4