Chandan Madan And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 5 August, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.

                                            CWP No.10084 of 2009
                                            Date of decision: 5.8.2009

Chandan Madan and others
                                              ....Petitioners.
                        vs.
State of Haryana and others
                                              ..Respondents

CORAM:   HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR.
         HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
                         ---
Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioners.
                     --
J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral)

The petitioners claim to have purchased the land in question in

the year 2005. After the petitioners purchased the land the State

Government issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894, seeking to acquire 305 acres, 5 kanals 15 marlas of land situated

within the revenue estates of village Manakpur, Udhamgarh and Garhi

Banjaran District Yamuna Nagar vide notification dated 11.7.2007. The

petitioners claim that they had filed objections under section 5-A of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 8.8.2007. Despite the aforesaid objections,

the State Government issued a notification under section 6 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 crystalizing its intention to acquire the land of the

petitioners which was a part of the land sought to be acquired.

In spite of the fact that the notification under section 6 of the

Act was issued on 10.7.2008, the petitioners have approached this Court

after a lapse of one year, inasmuch as, the instant writ petition was filed on

9.7.2009. On this account alone, the instant writ petition deserves to be

dismissed. Be that as it may, the solitary contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioners is that land adjacent to the land of the petitioners has been

ordered to be released, whereas, three plots of land one of which comprised
CWP No.10084 of 2009 -2-

the land of the petitioners falling adjacent to one another, has been sought to

be acquired. In this behalf, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited

this Court’s attention to the Sajra plan placed on the record of this case as

Annexure P6.

We have perused Annexure P6 in order to ascertain the solitary

contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the merits

of the case. A perusal of the Sajra plan reveals the land sought to be

released which has been depicted in green colour. The entire land depicted

in green colour has been described as, abadi or industrial units. Thus

viewed, it is apparent whilst the land which has been released is in actual

use for running industries or for residential purpose ,whereas, undisputedly

the land of the petitioners is vacant. In view of the above we find no

justification even on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioners.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant writ petition

is dismissed.

( J.S.Khehar)
Judge

(S.D.Anand)
Judge

August 5, 2009,
rk