IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6703 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 9, 2010 Bhawani Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Joginder Pal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 23.2.2008 (P-4) as well as legal notice dated 30.11.2009 (P-5) sent by the petitioners in terms of order dated 31.1.2008 (P-2) passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 913 of 2008 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 17187 of 2004). A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to release the land belonging to the petitioners from acquisition. It is claimed that the public purpose of water supply project, for which the land was acquired, has already been completed and commissioned CWP No. 6703 of 2010 and the land belonging to the petitioners is no more required for the said public purpose. 2. It is admitted as a fact that the land belonging the petitioners was acquired in 2001 for development and implementation of canal based water supply scheme by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The project has since been completed and commissioned. The petitioners had earlier challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing C.W.P. No. 17965 of 2001, which was dismissed on 20.7.2004. On filing of SLP (C) No. 17187 of 2004 by the petitioners, leave was granted and on merit the contention of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 31.1.2008 (P-2), holding that which land is suitable to be acquired for a particular public purpose has to be left to the subjective satisfaction of the State authorities and it could never be the function of the Courts. However, after dismissing the appeal, Hon’ble the Supreme Court permitted the petitioners to move appropriate application before the State authorities. It was further observed that if the project has been completed achieving the purpose of acquisition then an appropriate order be passed by the respondents. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction, the petitioners sent a representation and have also served a legal notice. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that the respondents should have decided the representation of the petitioners as per the direction issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in its order dated 31.1.2008 (P-2). Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition and issue direction to 2 CWP No. 6703 of 2010 respondent No. 1 to take cognisance of the legal notice dated 30.11.2009 (P-5) and decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) April 9, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3