IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 19170 of 1991(O&M) Date of decision:25th May, 2011 M/s Swatantra Bharat Woollen Mills, G.T.Road, Panipat and another .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Kamal Sehgal, Addl.A.G.Haryana for the respondent-State. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') on 23.02.1989 (P-1) proposing to acquire a vast tract of land including land owned by the petitioner measuring 19 Bighas and 16 Biswas, for a public purpose, namely, for the development and utilization of land as Residential and Commercial area for Sector 17, Panipat. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 22.02.1990 (P-2) finally ordering acquisition of the above said land. The petitioner is the owner of 19 bighas 16 biswas of land. As per admitted facts mentioned in the written statement, the land Civil Misc. Nos. 6701-02 of 2011 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 19170 of 1991 measuring 13 bighas 1 biswa was kept out of acquisition when an award was passed. The rest of the land, it is specifically stated that was acquired to maintain a green-belt, next to the main road leading to New Delhi. At the time of argument Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioners contends that whatever land falls within the green-belt the State Government can acquire the same and the petitioner will have no objection to the acquisition to that extent, however the excess land be released from acquisition, which the petitioners need to run their industrial activity. To claim relief, he has placed reliance upon a judgment passed in CWP NO. 8329 of 1990 decided on 19.12.2008 titled as Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others in which similar dispute, relating to these very notifications was raised, the writ petition was disposed of by issuing directions to the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, to constitute a Committee of senior officers to be headed by an officer not below the rank of Administrator, HUDA, to visit the spot, hear the land owners grievance and thereafter redetermine as to how much land is required for the public purpose i.e. Green Belt and to establish an Old Age Home. It was also ordered that the writ petitions, qua the land which is needed for the aforementioned purpose shall be deemed to have been dismissed, whereas the left out land which is not required for the aforementioned public purposes shall stand released in favour of the land owners. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners 2 Civil Misc. Nos. 6701-02 of 2011 in/and Civil Writ Petition No. 19170 of 1991 that the dispute in this case is squarely covered by this very judgment. On the other hand, learned State counsel has failed to show any distinction as to how the case of the petitioners is not covered by the Sanjeev Kumar's case(supra). Under above circumstances, this writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms as in the case of Sanjeev Kumar (supra) and the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula is directed to refer the case of the petitioners to the same Committee or constitute a new Committee for the said purpose forthwith for reconsideration of the case of the petitioners regarding acquisition of their land. [JASBIR SINGH] JUDGE [RAKESH KUMAR GARG] JUDGE 25th May, 2011 Shivani Kaushik 3