IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 990 of 2010 Date of Decision: May 11, 2010 S.K. Malhotra and another …Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. G.C. Dhuriwala, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from taking possession of the land measuring 3 Kanals 17 Marlas and 3 Kanals 16 Marlas, which is alleged to have been acquired vide notifications dated 3.10.2002, 29.9.2003 and 2.6.2004 (P-2 to P-5). 2. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was issued on 3.10.2002 (P-2), which was followed by declaration made under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.2003 (P-3). Another notification under Section 4 read with C.W.P. No. 990 of 2010 Section 17(1) & (4) of the Act was issued on 2.6.2004, seeking to acquire land for a public purpose, namely, for the extension of road from Red Light Point on Kalka Road to I.T. Park in village Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh (P-4). Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17(1) & (4) of the Act was made on 8.6.2004 (P-5). 3. In the written statement filed by the respondent-U.T. Chandigarh, the stand taken is that the instant petition suffers from the vice of res judicata because in respect of the same land C.W.P. No. 10798 of 1992 (Inderjit Behal and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others) was filed, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.2.2009 (R-1). Even S.L.P. (Civil) No. 4535 of 2009 (S.K. Malhotra and another v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others), challenging the view of the Division Bench of this Court was also dismissed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 2.3.2009 (R-2). It has, thus, been urged that acquisition in respect of the land belonging to the petitioners stand finalized and possession is being resisted by them. 4. According to the written statement, the land of the petitioners falls in Khasra No. 149/3, which stood acquired by the earlier notification. The aforesaid factual position is patent from reading of para 5 of the writ petition. The public purpose of acquisition of land was aforestation for the Forest Department, Chandigarh Administration, U.T. Chandigarh. The land was included in the notification dated 10.1.1992 (R-3). A perusal of the notification dated 10.1.1992 (R-3), proves the aforesaid factual 2 C.W.P. No. 990 of 2010 position. The last entry on the last page of the notification includes Khara No. 149/3. The matter stands already adjudicated. The claim of the petitioners that the present land belonging to them forms part of Khasra No. 148, has been controverted by the respondents by urging that the petitioners, in fact, are in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 149/3, which stands acquired on 10.1.1992 (R-3) and no part of their land forming part of Khasra No. 149/3 has been acquired vide notification dated 3.10.2002 (P-2) for the public purpose of extension of Chandigarh Technology Park or vide another notification dated 2.6.2004 extension of road from Red Light Point on Kalka Road to I.T. Park in village Mani Majra, U.T. Chandigarh. It has further been pointed out that the acquisition made vide the aforesaid two notifications whereby a part of the land falling in Khasra No. 148Min and 149Min has been acquired, has also been finalised and the award has been announced on 29.3.2004 being Award No. 569 and 575, dated 10.2.2005 respectively. The respondents have also placed on record a site plan showing the location and possession of the petitioners (R-4). 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that no dispute with regard to Khasra No. 149/3 could now be raised as the same stood finalised by the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No. 10798 of 1992, decided on 4.2.2009 (R-1). Likewise, in respect of other parts of Khasra Nos. 149Min and 148Min, acquisition proceedings have been finalised and the award stood announced on 29.3.2004 or on 3 C.W.P. No. 990 of 2010 10.2.2005. The present petition has been filed in 2010. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. 6. However, dismissal of the writ petition would not result into adjudicating any claim of the petitioners for demarcation of their remnant land, if any, in any of the aforesaid khasra numbers. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 11, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4