IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.4730 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.3.2009 Dayanand etc. -----Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks a mandamus for payment of compensation with interest for the land which has been utilised for constructing the Alampur Patodi Minor and for quashing letter dated 29.1.2009, Annexure P-6. 2. Case set out in the petition is that land of the petitioners was utilised by the State for construction of Alampur Patodi Minor in the year 1986. On 5.8.2008, the petitioners served Legal Notice, which has been replied vide letter dated 29.1.2009, stating that the work of construction of canal was started in the year 1986 and after point at RD 6500, the same was shifted to another place. The land beyond RD 6500 which belonged to the petitioners, was not required. Compensation was paid for land upto RD 6500, but the State did not require the land beyond RD 6500 and therefore, it was not considered necessary to acquire the said land. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. C.W.P. No.4730 of 2009 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that possession of land of the petitioner was taken in the year 1986 and the land was utilised, though the same was not being now used by the State. The petitioners have suffered loss and therefore, a direction be issued for acquiring the land and for payment of compensation. 5. As regards the alleged action of taking possession of the land of the petitioners in the year 1986, we are of the view that the issue cannot be gone into, at this stage, after 23 years, particularly when the land is no longer in possession of the State nor needed by the State and the petitioners slept over the matter for such a long period. 6. As regards direction for acquisition, we are unable to hold that there is any legal right to seek such a relief. 7. Only issue that survives is whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation for any damage by any action of the State. This issue will require adjudication of disputed facts, for which this petition is not the appropriate remedy. If the petitioners are so aggrieved, they will be at liberty to take their remedies in accordance with law. 8. The petition is disposed of. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE March 25, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 2