IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.985 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.1.2009 Sanjeev Kumar. -----Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. R.K. Battas, Advocate & Mr. H.R. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of notifications dated 12.8.2003 and 10.8.2004 under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the 1894 Act”) and award dated 7.12.2005. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell the land in the year 1994 in favour of respondents No.5 and 6 to 8. The said respondents applied for NOC from the Income Tax Department, on which the Income Tax Department issued a notice dated 15.2.1995 under Section 269 UD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the 1961 Act”), alleging under-valuation of the property and proposing to acquire the same on that ground. After following the procedure, order dated 23.2.1995 was passed under Section 269 UD of the 1961 Act. The said order was upheld by the Delhi High Court on C.W.P. No.985 of 2009 21.12.2001, but vide order dated 31.7.2008 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order of the Delhi High Court has been set aside on account of failure of the Central Government to make the payment. 3. Between the date of order under Section 269 UD of the 1961 Act and date of order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. 31.7.2008, the State of Haryana issued the impugned notifications for acquisition of land. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the land in dispute was already subject matter of order under Section 269 UD of 1961 Act, the land was vested in the Central Government and thus, the petitioner could not file objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act and on that ground, acquisition is liable to be quashed. 5. We do not find any merit in the contention. In whomsoever the land may vested at appropriate time may be entitled to compensation, or to file objections, acquisition cannot be held to be illegal on that ground. It could not be shown that the land which may be subject matter of an order under Section 269 UD of the 1961 Act is exempt from acquisition on that ground. As regards opportunity of filing objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act, Public Notice having been issued, opportunity was available to be availed by whosoever wanted to file objections. 6. In view of above, the petition is dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE January 21, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 2