IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4378 of 2011 Date of decision: 03.05.2011 Ram Kishan and another …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate Mr.S.S.Patter, Sr.DAG Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 25.4.2008, proposing to acquire 3510 acres 5 kanals 1 marla of land, for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of Ch.Devi Lal Industrial Model Township, as integrated complex for Industrial, commercial and other public utilities. Further challenge has been made to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act on 22.4.2009, finally ordering acquisition of 3325 acres 3 kanals 16 marlas of land. As per admitted position, an award was passed on 28.4.2011 for the land only measuring approximately 1100 acres. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court:- CWP No.4378 of 2011 “For issuance of notice of motion, reliance has been placed upon pendency of CWP No.3669 of 2011, now fixed for 3.5.2011. By making reference to the photographs on record, counsel states that contrary to the Policy of the State Government dated 26.10.2007, residential house of the petitioners has been ordered to be acquired. Notice of motion for 3.5.2011. Put up for hearing along with CWP No.3669 of 2011. Interim stay in the same terms as in that case. However, this order shall not give any right to the petitioners to raise any further construction and also to get benefit of the Policy of the State Government dated 26.10.2007 on account of pendency of the case.” At the time of arguments, it was brought to our notice that against the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Dutt and others v. State of Haryana and others, (CWP No.6166 of 2010), decided on 3.2.2011, the State of Haryana has gone in an appeal. However, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.11019 of 2011 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27.4.2011, by observing as under:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In our view the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity whatsoever. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that notwithstanding dismissal of the special leave petition, the petitioners shall be free to enter into negotiated settlement with the respondents and other land owners.” 2 CWP No.4378 of 2011 Counsel for the respondents have failed to show as to why case of the petitioners is not covered by ratio of the judgment in Brahm Dutt’s case (supra). It could also be not disputed that the facts are identical and notifications under challenge, are also the same. The contention of counsel for the petitioners that residential houses of the petitioners have wrongly been ordered to be acquired contrary to the Policy of the State of Haryana dated 26.10.2007 is also not disputed. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the dispute herein is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by ratio of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Dutt’s case (supra), accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of that judgment and the petitioners in the present writ petition shall be entitled to the same relief which was granted to the petitioners in that writ petition. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 03.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3