LPA No.543 of 2009 and -1- LPA No.1073 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.02.2010 1. LPA No.543 of 2009 Dev Raj Bansal .....Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents 2. LPA No.1073 of 2009 (O&M) Vimla Goel and others .....Appellants Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. C. B. Goel, Advocate for the appellant (in LPA No.543 of 2009). Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the appellants (in LPA No.1073 of 2009) ALOK SINGH, J. 1. Both these appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 19.11.2008 passed by learned Single LPA No.543 of 2009 and -2- LPA No.1073 of 2009 (O&M) Judge, thereby dismissing the writ petitions bearing CWP Nos.18696 of 1997 and 640 of 1998. Both appeals are being heard and disposed of together. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that writ petitioners sought quashing of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. Learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petitions has observed that notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the Land Acquisition Act are valid and requires no interference. Learned Single Judge further observed that title of some of the writ petitioners qua their acquired land, may be purchased after issuance of the notifications under Sections 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, is not in dispute, and they are entitled to be paid compensation for the same. It is further observed that if such a compensation has already been deposited by the respondents with the Land Acquisition Collector, the same shall be released to the petitioners, subject to, however, verification of their title, if so required by the authorities, and the petitioners shall also be entitled to interest till the date of deposit of the said compensation amount with the Land Acquisition Collector. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. We are of the view that in view of the decision taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of U.P. and ors. vs. Rajiv Gupta and ors. 1995 LACC, 21 and a judgment of this Court in the matter of Suresh Chand and ors. vs. State LPA No.543 of 2009 and -3- LPA No.1073 of 2009 (O&M) of Haryana and ors., 2003(2) PLJ 306, learned Single Judge has rightly observed that notifications do not require any interference and Government has not committed any jurisdictional or legal error while issuing the notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 9. We further find that since writ petitioner has purchased the land after the issuance of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6, he has no locus to challenge the notifications. Moreover, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were challenged after passing of the award under Land Acquisition Act. We are in full agreement with the observation made by the learned Single Judge. No interference is called for in the appeal. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the appeals being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. It is made clear that order will not effect the remedy of the appellants under Section 18 of the Act including the claim for interest. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 02.02.2010 JUDGE ashish