IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12495 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 18, 2009 Gurjit Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present : Mr. Preetwinder Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral) The petitioner claims to have purchased certain land in the revenue estate of Village Boha through a sale deed dated 29.03.1988. The aforesaid land was sought to be acquired with the issuance of a notification dated 27.12.1988. Consequent upon the issuance of the aforesaid notification, the petitioner did not file any objection under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Subsequently, through a notification dated 08.06.1989, the State Government issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act crystallizing its intention to acquire the land including the land purchased by the petitioner through sale deed dated 29.03.1988. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to assail the action of the respondents in acquiring his land on account of the CWP No. 12495 of 2009 fact that he has made a palatial house on the land which was purchased by him on 29.03.1988. The petitioner has approached this Court about a decade after the issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioner did not even file any objection when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27.12.1988. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was never aware of the issuance of the aforesaid notifications, and as such, there was no question of having filed any objection under section 5A of the Act. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, however, not possible for us to accede to the same. By a deeming fiction of law, everyone concerned is presumed to be aware of the notifications issued by the State Government. The petitioner must, therefore, be deemed to have been aware of the issuance of the notifications dated 27.12.1988 and 08.06.1989. In the first instance, he never filed any objection under Section 5A of the Act, secondly, he did not even avail of any remedy so as to impugn the notifications for a period of 10 years after the issuance of the notification under Section 6 of the Act. In view of the above, we decline to entertain the claim of the petitioner in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge August 18, 2009 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2