In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 1028 of 2008 Date of decision:January 23, 2008 Ram Niwas and others ---Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present: Mr.Ajit Malik, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** M.M.KUMAR. J. The prayer made in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for issuance of direction to respondent No. 1 to release the land of the petitioners comprising in Khewat No. 613/557 in Rect. No. 730 Killa No. 64/8/1/2/2 measuring 4 Marlas situated in the Revenue Estate of Patti Taraf Afgan, Tehsil and District Panipat from acquisition. It has been claimed that the construction raised by the petitioners is 'A' class construction. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') was issued on 12.9.2001 to which the petitioners filed objections under Section 5A of the Act on 15.10.2001. Eventually, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 01-03.2002. The instant petition has been filed in the year 2008 on the preposterous ground that some area has been released from acquisition on 22.10.2003 in favour of an industry named and styled as M/s Bhatia Packers Private Limited, Panipat. Likewise, the release of C.W.P.No. 1028 of 2008 -2- land in the case of M/s Jeewan Spinners Private Limited, Sector-29, Panipat is pursuance to the orders passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and also subject to obtaining permission for change of land use. So far as the release of land in favour of Shankar Woolen Private Limited vide order dated 29.11.2002, is concerned, it was on the ground that permission has already been granted for change of land use by the Government. So far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no such distinguishing feature and the exercise of discretion by the respondent in respect of others is based on relevant considerations. In any case the petitioners cannot claim exemption even under Section 48 of the Act as of right. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Mandir Shree Sita Ramjee v.Land Acquisition Collector (2005) 6 SCC 745, Murari v. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 15 and State of Tamil Nadu v. L. Krishanan (1996) 7 SCC 450. There is no ground to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S.MANN) JUDGE January 23, 2008 paramjit