In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P.No.8171 of 2008 Date of Decision:15-05-2008 Samay Singh and another ---Petitioners vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA *** Present: Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against orders dated 5.6.2007 (Annexure P-4) and 14.1.2008 (Annexure P-6). The petitioners had earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3891 of 2003, which was dismissed. The order passed by this court was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(C) No. 9621 of 2004. The S.L.P. was disposed of by issuing certain directions which have been reproduced in the impugned order. In pursuance to the C.W.P.No. 8171 of 2008 -2- directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the impugned order dated 5.6.2007 has now been passed. According to the operative part of the order, it has been found that only construction measuring 150 Sq. yards was being used for the residential purpose by the petitioner before publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). The authorities after giving necessary zoning set-backs, has released the area measuring 300 Sq. yards falling in Khasra No. 920 of village Wazirabad in favour of the petitioners. It has further been directed that since the final layout plan has not been approved by the Department, the same was to be prepared by the HUDA by keeping in view the released area belonging to the petitioners. We have heard learned counsel and find that authorities appear to have made efforts to accommodate the constructions of the petitioners in accordance with the directions and observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. The construction which was in existence before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, has been released by releasing the proportionate vacant land. We cannot come to the conclusion that more area of the petitioner could have been released or that releasing of further area would not have interfered in the planning of the State. There is thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE May 15, 2008 paramjit