IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6583 of 2005 Date of Decision:- 10.03.2008 Babu Singh ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Munish Singal, Advocate vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondent(s) through Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr.Puneet Kansal, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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) This order shall dispose of C.R.Nos.6583, 6613 and 6604 of 2005 as the common questions of law and facts are involved. The petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 29.5.2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda whereby his execution application has been consigned to the record room being fully satisfied. The matter pertains to execution of an award passed under the Land Acquisition Act. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties were heard on February 12, 2008. During the course of hearing, it transpired that similar matters were earlier allowed by this Court, however, the respondents preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is still pending. There is an ad-interim stay against C.R. No.6583 of 2005 -2- the orders passed by this Court. In these circumstances, the following order was passed. “As prayed for, adjourned to 10.3.2008 to enable learned counsel to have instructions from respondent No.2 to the effect that whatever the orders are passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP, the benefit, if any, accruing therefrom, shall be granted to the petitioner as well.” In deference thereto, learned counsel for the contesting respondents had placed on record the affidavit of Anil Sharma, Assistant Manager and authorized signatory for and on behalf of the Liquidator of the Bathinda Cooperative Spinning Mill and para 3 of the aforesaid affidavit reads as follows:- “3. That the relief being claimed in the present revision petition is similar to the revision petitions referred to above. Consequently, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court would be applicable to the present revision petition as well and accordingly the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP would be made applicable to the petitioner in the present Civil Revision.” In this view of the matter, these revision petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents that as and when the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner shall also be entitled to the same relief, as stated above. March 10, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE