High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Chander Bhan & Ors v. The State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-2231-2006  RD-P&H 2100 (28 March 2006)
C.W.P. No. 2231 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: March 24, 2006
Chander Bhan and others .................................... Petitioners Versus
The State of Haryana and others ...................... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S.Saron
Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate
for the petitioners.
ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.
The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned notifications issued under Section 4 dated 27.8.2004 and under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 25.8.2005 (Annexures P-15 and P-18) by which the land of the petitioners has been acquired.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are owners in possession of the land measuring 17 kanals 7 marlas and they have raised construction of 4 rooms along with Bathroom and Latrine etc. It is further averred that the construction is `A' class and the houses of the petitioners have all the modern facilities.
Learned counsel has firstly contended that the petitioners had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (Annexure P-16). However, the objections were dismissed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners have also annexed an affidavit sworn by Meer Singh, Advocate (Annexure P-17) in support of their contention.
A perusal of the case file shows that the petitioners were issued notice and were asked to appear personally before the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Gurgaon, on 12.12.2004 at 10 AM [ 2 ]
C.W.P. No. 2231 of 2006 (O&M)
as provided under Section 5-A(2) of the Land Acquisition Act,1894. Mr.
Meer Singh, Advocate, had appeared before respondent No.2 where his statement was duly recorded by the Naib Tehsildar. Once an Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners and his statement was duly recorded then it cannot be said that the objections were not considered. Thus, the allegation of the petitioners that no opportunity of personal hearing was given to them cannot be accepted.
It has next been contended by the learned counsel that lands of some other land-owners have been released from acquisition whereas the land of the petitioners has been acquired and, therefore, the acquiring of the land of the petitioners is totally discriminatory.
We have perused the site-plan (Annexure P-8) and it shows that the lands of some other land-owners shown in purple colour have been released from acquisition whereas the land of the petitioners which has been depicted in green colour has not been released. The lands in purple colour released by the State Government are in one corner of the total area acquired whereas the land belonging to the petitioners is in the middle of large chunk of the land which stands acquired. The land belonging to the petitioners is not similarly situated to the lands which have been ordered to the released and, hence, the State Government cannot be accused of any discrimination in not releasing the land belonging to the petitioners. A perusal of the site- plan also shows that no land which is adjacent to the land of the petitioners has been released from acquisition and, hence, there is no discrimination or arbitrariness on part of the respondents.
In view of the above, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed.
( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA )
24.3.2006 ( S.S. SARON )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.