JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J.:- The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the notification dated 16.8.2012( Annexure P-3) and notification/declaration dated 8.2.2013 (Annexure P-6) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) respectively being in deviation of the master plan dated 5.12.2007 (Annexure P-2) and also having been issued in violation of Section 5A of the Act whereby the objections of the petitioner have not been maliciously decided. 2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is owner in possession of the land measuring 12 kanals 3 marlas. The respondents prepared a master plan for the controlled area under Section 5(4) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (as applicable to the State of Haryana). In pursuance of the development plan and for construction of the Kharkhauda bye pass, a notification was issued wherein 7 kanals 12 marlas of the land of the petitioner was sought to be acquired for construction of the said bye pass. The petitioner submitted objections on 9.10.2012 that the petitioner had planted orchards over the area and detailed underground irrigation facility and spent more than Rs. 5 lacs. Reference was made to a newspaper report that there was deviation of the bye pass. The petitioner approached the office of the District Town Planner to enquire about the deviation, however, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published. The ground taken was that there was deviation of 250-300 Meters prior to the cross-section of the roads coming from village Pipli, Kurukshetra and it will create lot of traffic hazard. Objections of the petitioner have been submitted but he had not been given opportunity of hearing. 3. After hearing counsel for the petitioner at length and from perusing of the paper-book, it would be clear that the submissions which have now sought to be raised were nowhere pleaded before the Land Acquisition Collector. A perusal of the objections filed which have been appended as Annexure P-4 would only show that it had been pleaded therein that petitioner was running an orchard and his family had been earning money from the income of the orchard. A perusal of the objections filed which have been appended as Annexure P-4 would only show that it had been pleaded therein that petitioner was running an orchard and his family had been earning money from the income of the orchard. The applicant employed four persons who worked in the orchard by which they had been earning their livelihood and if the land in question is acquired, then these families would become unemployed, therefore, the land of the petitioner may not be acquired for Kharkhauda bye-pass. 4. The petitioner had not raised any serious objection to the acquisition of his land and in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the plea of not affording any opportunity of hearing being provided to him before issuing notification under Section 6 of the Act. In the present case, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued for the purpose of constructing Kharkhauda bye pass which is a public purpose. The State is entitled for acquiring the land in exercise of doctrine of eminent domain. In the absence of any such ground having been raised in the objections, the petitioner now cannot raise any plea for the first time by filing the present petition. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and, thus, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————