IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.22549 of 2010 Date of decision: 10.03.2011 Gurnam Singh and others …..Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G.Punjab Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) Following order was passed by this Court on 17.12.2010:- “Counsel for the petitioners contends that notifications under Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) were issued on the same date i.e. 10.6.2009. To say that there was no necessity to invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, counsel states possession is not taken even after issuance of notifications mentioned above. Notice of motion. On our asking Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G. Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply him two copies of the writ petition during course of the day. Civil Writ Petition No.22549 of 2010 Dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed till further orders. Adjourned to 17.2.2011.” Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.A.G.Punjab has filed reply on behalf of the respondents, through Executive Engineer, Drainage Construction Division Faridkot at Gidderbaha. Paragraph no.8 of the reply reads thus:- “8. That para No.8 of the petition is correct to the extent that the demarcation was carried out in the month of December, 2010. In reply to the rest of the para no.8 of the petition it is submitted that due to some uncertain reasons the work of said link drain could not be carried out in time and therefore fresh notification u/s 4 and 6 are being issued after denotifying the notifications dated 10.6.2009.” In view of the stand taken in the written statement filed, this writ petition has become infructuous and the same is disposed of accordingly. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 10.03.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 2