IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.300 of 2008 Decided on : June 3, 2010 Prem Dutt …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Ms Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she be permitted to withdraw this petition, with liberty to file appeal against the award of the District Judge, taking all the legal pleas available to the petitioner, including the plea that the award of the Collector is ultra vires, on account of its having been delivered beyond the outer limit of two years, prescribed in Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act and that the period spent in pursuing the present writ petition may be excluded, while computing limitation. 2. Petitioner’s counsel agrees to the fact pointed out by me that since the appeal would lie to this Court against the award of the District Judge, in the present Writ Petition it cannot be said that period spent in pursuing the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… present Writ Petition may be excluded while computing limitation for appeal. She says that the petition may be dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appeal, as aforesaid, and also to make an application, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Prayer granted. 3. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner may file appeal against the award of the District Judge, dated 7th November, 2007, and may also make an application, under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, for excluding the time spent for pursuing the present petition. In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending applications also stand dismissed, as having become infructuous. June 3, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J