The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of land acquisition notifications for a sewage treatment plant. The Court rejected the plea that intervening unbought land invalidates the acquisition, stating suitability for the plant is a technical function of authorities.
Writ petition dismissed; notifications not quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.5891 of 2011 Date of decision: 06.04.2011
Gurmail Singh and others
…..Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others
……Respondents
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
CM No.4999 of 2011
Application allowed, document is taken on record.
CWP No.5891 of 2011
Petitioners have filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash notifications, issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 16.12.2009 (P3) and 25.8.2010 (P5) respectively, proposing to acquire land falling in khasra Nos.3 min (22-13), 63 min (016), 64 min (0-16) total measuring 24 bighas and 5 biswas (5.05 acres). The land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, ‘for construction of Sewage Treatment Plant and Sullage Carrier for Pinjore Town on Pinjore-Nalagarh Road in village Manakpur Nanakchand, tehsil Kalka, district Panchkula’.
2
Civil Writ Petition No.5891 of 2011
When this matter came up for hearing on 1.4.2011, by making reference to a site plan (P6), in which, the petitioners’ land is shown with red colour, it was argued that in between the major chunk of land acquired to set up the sewage plant and land of the petitioners, area shown in green colour belonging to other land owners, has not been acquired. It was contention of counsel for the petitioners that if that is so, the petitioners’ land cannot be used by the authorities for the purpose for which it is going to be acquired. We orally asked the State counsel to get information in that regard.
Today in Court, a copy of the site plan has been put on record, which is taken on record as ‘Mark CX’. By making reference to the same and on getting instructions from Mr.Mangat Rai, XEN, Public Health Engineering Department, Yamuna Nagar, who is present in Court, the State counsel informs that only land for passage has been acquired out of khasra Nos.23 and 64. In the site plan, length and breadth of passage is also shown. If that is so, we feel that the objection raised by the petitioners to the proposed acquisition is not justified. Further whether the land is suitable to set up a sewage plant is the function/duty of the authorities. The Court is not supposed to substitute its opinion to the proposal made by the technical hands.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge
06.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the objection regarding non-acquisition of intervening land validates quashing of the acquisition notifications.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gurmail Singh and others
State of Haryana and others
Jasbir Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
