CWP No. 9260 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 9260 of 2008 Date of decision 26 .5.2008 J.M.Oberoi and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. NC Kinra Advocate for the petitioners. M.M.KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9260 and 9261 of 2008 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing order dated 23.1.2008 ( Annexure P.11) passed by Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Haryana. As a consequential relief the quashing of notification dated 25.1.2006 ( Annexure P.5) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , notification dated 6.10.2006 ( Annexure P.6) issued under Section 6 of the Act and award dated 5.2.2007 (Annexure P.9) has also been prayed. The petitioners had earlier filed CWP No 3331 of 2007 and 19183 of 2006 seeking the release of their land from acquisition. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.9.2007 has issued direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation made by the petitioners concerning release of their land within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The impugned order dated 23.1.2008 (Annexure P.11) deciding the representation made by the petitioner has been passed. According to the findings returned by the CWP No. 9260 of 2008 2 Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary- respondent no.1 the name of the petitioners did not figure in the revenue record i.e. jamabandi showing the entry of mutation of land in his favour. They were also informed by the Municipal Council, Rohtak vide order dated 2.12.2005 that the building plan was sent to the District Town Planner who had reported that the site falls within the extended municipal limits of the controlled area of Rohtak. Accordingly, the petitioners were required to obtain permission for change of land use from the department and building plan was returned. No change of land use has been obtained. Construction of boundary wall/ foundation have also been found to be in violation of the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (for brevity 'the 1963 Act'). The allegation of the petitioners that the land of Shri Naveen Kumar Arora in khasra No. 40, 23//2 have been left out of acquisition has also been found to be incorrect because the land of Shri Naveen Kumar Arora falls in khasra No. 13//13/2, 18 which has been acquired and no land out of khasra No. 40 was released from acquisition. No part of the land belonging to Jagdish Rai Bansal, Rohit Chemical Industry Rohtak was released. The petitioner did not file any objection under Section 5A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector as per the intimation sent by the Collector on 2.1.2007. It has come on record that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 25.1.2006 expressing the intention to acquire the land measuring 159 acre 4 marlas for setting up Industrial Estate Rohtak in village Kutana , Tehsil and District Rohtak and at the time of making declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 6.10.2006 the total land acquired was 152 acres 4 kanal 8 marlas. Thereafter award of the land was announced on 5.2.2007 CWP No. 9260 of 2008 3 and possession has been handed over to HSIDC The acquisition proceedings have attained finality. The petitioner had earlier filed petitions. After hearing learned counsel at some length, we find that once the petitioners have not filed any objection even disclosing their status as land owners which has now been reflected in the revenue record by entry of mutation then the respondents could not have issued him notice of personal hearing. It is appropriate to mention that petitioner had purchased the land in question in March 2004 vide registered sale deed whereas Naveen Kumar Arora had purchased the land on 11.8.1991 (CWP No. 9261 of 2008). We are satisfied after perusal of the impugned order dated 23.1.2008 ( Annexure P.11) that the petitioners did not show any interest in the acquisition proceedings after issuance of notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act. The representation made by the petitioners has now been decided and the impugned order has recorded categorical finding for failure to file objection under Section 5A of the Act. In addition, the violation of 1963 Act have been pointed out. We find no legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting our interference because the award stand announced on 5.2.2007 and the possession has been handed over to the HSIDC. There is thus no merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected petition. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 26.5.2008 Judge okg