IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22808 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.12.2010 Subhash Chand …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash an order dated 10.12.2010 (P18), refusing to release land of the petitioner, which was acquired way back in the year 2001. Land was not released on a ground that some part of it falls within 60 meters road alignment and rest of the land was earmarked for a Shopping Mall. By making reference to the site plan (P20), counsel for the petitioner has tried to demonstrate that even after using land for the road alignment, 355 square meters area with construction thereon will still be available, which can be released in favour of the petitioner. After looking into facts of this case, we are not inclined to accept request of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that to acquire a vast track of land, including land of the petitioner measuring 4 kanal, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) was issued on 14.8.2000. The petitioner filed objections under Section Civil Writ Petition No.22808 of 2010 5-A of the Act. Taking note of a fact that his land falls in the road alignment, the Land Acquisition Collector did not recommend its release. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.8.2001. Thereafter, award was passed on 18.12.2002. The petitioner did nothing and kept on sleeping. He made a representation in the year 2006 for release of his land. When the authorities failed to react, he came to this by filing CWP No.19008 of 2009. Above said facts clearly show the callous attitude of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that the land in dispute is not needed for construction of a road and a Shopping Mall. Order passed is perfectly justified. Contention of counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not in terms of the Policy dated 26.10.2007 is liable to be rejected. He has failed to show us violation of any of the conditions of the Policy to release the land. Otherwise also, we are of the opinion that the Policy which was issued in the year 2007, is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 21.12.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2