CWP No.10138 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 10138 of 2007 Date of decision: 19 .5.2008 The Mandi Adampur Vishva Karma A.M. Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Parveen Hans Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG Haryana Mr. RS Longia, Advocate for HUDA M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Mandi Adampur Vishva Karma A.M. Cooperative Housing Building Society Ltd. through its President Shri Shashi Kant seeks quashing of notification dated 29.8.2005 (Annexure P.3) and declaration dated 28.8.2006 ( Annexure P.5) issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). The petitioner has claimed that a large portion of khasra no. 1174 owned by and in possession of the petitioner society has more than 200 houses over the land. It is claimed that the land belongs to different members of the society who are in exclusive possession thereof. The petitioners have also claimed that objections under Section 5A of the Act were filed by Shri Shashi Kant on 22.9.2005 ( Annexure P.4). It is conceded that no objection has been filed by the petitioner-society as such. The petitioner in his objection has claimed that it is owner in possession of land measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas, which has pucca construction of boundary wall and the same can be used for CWP No.10138 of 2007 2 construction of residential/commercial structures. In para 3 of the objection, the names of the societies have been mentioned. In the written statement filed by respondent nos. 1 and 6 it has been clarified that all necessary steps for acquisition of land have been taken which led to passing of Award No.1 on 3.8.2007. The land owners including the petitioner have been awarded a fair and adequate compensation as per the prevalent market price. It has further been claimed that the land is being acquired for serving a public purpose i.e. for setting up residential and commercial Sectors 3, 5 and 6 Hansi. In reply to the writ petition on merits, respondent nos. 1 and 6 have stated that one or two rooms over the land have been erected by the land owners after the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act which was infact vacant prior thereto. A similar reply by respondent nos. 2 to 5 have been filed. A separate reply on behalf of District Town Planner, respondent no. 7 has also been filed stating that some “C” class construction was raised by the petitioner society with the intention to save the land in question from acquisition after issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Unauthorised construction was demolished by respondent no. 7 after following due procedure of law. When the matter came up for consideration on 12.3.2008, learned State counsel has referred to the policy of the State dated 26.10.2007 and submitted that since interim order of stay is operating in favour of the petitioner since 12.7.2007, the petitioner was entitled under the policy to approach the Director, Urban Estate, Haryana for release of its land. In pursuance to the directions issued, the Director had filed the report CWP No.10138 of 2007 3 and no recommendation has been made in favour of the petitioner. The Director has pointed out that the location of the site on Shhajra Plan has been examined by him and that the vacant land can be developed in an integrated fashion alongwith the adjoining acquired area and thus object of the planned development can be better achieved rather than the society developing the area in its own way. This would lead to non integration with surrounding developed area and also result in deficiency of proper services. The Director has further concluded that the petitioer society has neither applied for the licence under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 before carving out the colony nor any town planning scheme was got sanctioned from the competent authority under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973. There was only one residential structure in existence before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act which has been released. The Director has further concluded that the objection filed under Section 5A of the Act has been fully considered and there is no legal infirmity in the procedure followed for acquisition. Therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed because there is nothing on the record to show that the acquisition suffers from any discrimination, procedural lapse or for want of hearing of objection filed under Section 5A of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 9.5.2008 Judge okg