Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Kaur And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 30 July, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.16010 of 2013
Date of Decision : July 30, 2013
Jarnail Kaur and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : Dr.Surya Parkash, Advocate, for the petitioners.
---
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
The petitioners are residents of village Jakhal, District Fatehabad and are aggrieved at the notifications dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-1) and 18.08.2011 (Annexure P-2) issued under Sections 4 & 6, respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pertaining to acquisition of their land measuring 39 kanals 15 marlas for the construction of "official building of Sub Tehsil, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Child Development Programme Officer, Assistant Treasury Officer, Inspector Food and Supplies etc. and residential buildings of the said officers/officials".
There is no denial to the fact that the petitioners did not submit objections under Section 5-A of the Act nor it is their case that Section 4 notification was not given publicity in accordance with law. The only plea taken by the petitioners to question the subject acquisition is that the water table of Kumar Mohinder 2013.08.13 15:30 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.16010 of 2013 [2] their land is too high and it is not prudent to construct a building thereupon.
In our considered view, the acquisition which is meant for a bonafide public purpose, cannot be set at rest on this ground. It is for the authorities or the subject experts to see whether or not the acquired land can be used for the notified public purpose. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the impugned notifications.
Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
July 30, 2013 (SURINDER GUPTA)
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2013.08.13 15:30
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh