IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 17838 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.10.2010 Harish Kumar Malik and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Harpreet Singh Giani, Advocate for the petitioners Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), on 12.8.2009 (P2) and 11.8.2010 (P8) respectively, proposing to acquire a vast track of land, including land of the petitioners. Further challenge has been laid to the report submitted by the Collector on objections filed by the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act. It is primary contention of counsel for the petitioners that after receipt of report from the Collector, the State Government has failed to apply its mind to the recommendation made and as such, there is non- compliance with the provisions of Section 5-A of the Act and the acquisition cannot be sustained. To say that the Government has not taken any decision, reliance was placed upon application dated 6.9.2010, moved under Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking the following information:- “1. Objection u/s 5A LAC Act 1994 dated 9.9.09 Civil Writ Petition No. 17838 of 2010 2. Statement of Sh.Harish Kumar etc. recorded on dated 4.2.2010 3. Order and report of LAC department with regard to the objections filed u/s 5A of LAC Act.” It is further stated that in response to aforesaid application, it was intimated by the State Government that after receipt of Collector’s report, no decision has been taken thereon by the Government. To say so, reference was made to document dated 8.9.2010 (P7), which reads thus:- “With reference to the subject mentioned above, the information requested is being sent to your along with this letter.” What was supplied with the above said letter is not put on record. At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners has failed to show anything to us that after receipt of recommendation from the Collector, the Government has not taken any decision thereon. Be that as it may, otherwise also, it is an admitted fact that no construction exists on the land of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners has failed to make out any case for release of land from acquisition in favour of the petitioners. It is only contention of counsel for the petitioners that some other patches of land have been released from acquisition. We have seen the site plan (P12) and are convinced that even after releasing some portion of land, the Scheme can still be implemented. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 01.10.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2