C.W.P. No.1662 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 29.08.2008. Rakesh Kumar Yadav and others .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present : Mr.Hemant Sarin, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Additional A.G. Haryana, with Ms.Ritu Punj, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr.R.S.Longia, Advocate for Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. -.- UMA NATH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record summoned as per the order of this Court dated 27.8.2008. It appears from the record that Khasra Nos.328 and 330, where the petitioners had constructed their residential houses, have been recommended for release by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned after considering the objections raised by petitioners under Section 5-A of Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act'). As regards the remaining part of land in Khasra No.354, the Land Acquisition Collector has left it to the Government to take a decision. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that it was a bounden duty of the Land Acquisition Collector to consider the objections raised under Section 5-A of the Act, and make decisive recommendations to the Government either to acquire or release the land, but no such recommendation has been made either. Learned counsel also submitted that C.W.P. No.1662 of 2008 2 he has not been communicated any decision of the Government till date and before the Government could take a decision, the petitioners were entitled to get notice for hearing. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that this land is required for a public purpose and this is an integral part of the planning. The Government has taken a considered view while releasing a portion of land on which the petitioners have constructed their residential houses. Area on which petitioners have raised constructions prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, are of such type that can be used only for tenants. Learned State counsel further submitted that this is not an isolated pocket of land which can not be utilized with other adjoining acquired land. On due consideration, we do not find any force in the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners. There was a joint site inspection of the area in question and undisputedly, petitioners were also given hearing under Section 5-A of the Act. Land Acquisition Collector has recommended the case to Government for taking a conscious decision at its own level after perusing records and granting opportunity of hearing to petitioners in terms of objections filed by them. However, since the land having constructions is not an isolated pocket and this is an integral part of the planning, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by Government. In written statement, filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2, particularly in para No.2, contentions of petitioners have been replied, as: “2. That the petitioners filed the objections u/s 5-A of the L.A. Act. The petitioners were given notices of C.W.P. No.1662 of 2008 3 hearing of objections by the Land Acquisition Collector. In response to the said notice issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, Sh.Rakesh Kumar, petitioner No.1 appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector on behalf of all the petitioners. He was given full opportunity of the personal hearing of objections U/s 5-A of the Act. The objections filed by the land owners were heard and considered as per the provisions of the Act. The petitioners were given full opportunity of personal hearing of objections. Sh.Rakesh Kumar, voluntarily gave the statement which was recorded and he signed the same before the Land Acquisition Collector. After hearing and considering the objections u/s 5-A of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector sent its report to the Government for taking further decision. Joint site inspection Committee also sent its report to the Government. After going through the entire record and the reports of Land Acquisition Collector and Joint Site Inspection Committee, the Government decided to issue declaration u/s 6 of the L.A. Act as per the provisions of the Act. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings and the present Civil Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Thus, in view of aforesaid, this writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE 29-08-2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) *mohinder JUDGE Whether this judgment be referred to Reporter or not? YES/NO