IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20709 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: December 1, 2008 Surinderjit Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab. for respondent Nos. 1 & 5. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Rupinder S. Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Mr. R.K. Chug, Standing Counsel for Central Govt., for respondent No. 4. Mr. H.K. Bindal, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notification dated 23.1.2004 (P-3), issued under Section 4 C.W.P. No. 20709 of 2006 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 18.1.2005 (P-4), issued under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners have also sought a declaration that Section 23(1) First of the Act is ultravires of Article 31-A Second Proviso and that the respondent Punjab Urban Development Authority [now Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)] cannot plan for any rural and municipal area under Section 17 of the Punjab Regional Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. 2. Without noticing the facts of the instant petition in detail, it is suffice to note that the impugned notifications were also subject matter of challenge in C.W.P. Nos. 9060, 9083, 8682 and 9119 of 2005 and 14793 of 2006, which have already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 26.9.2006. Even against the judgment dated 26.9.2005 review applications, namely, R.A. Nos. 312 of 2006 in CWP No. 9060 of 2005, 359 of 2006 in CWP No. 9119 of 2005, 360 of 2006 in CWP No. 8682 of 2005, 337 of 2006 in CWP No. 14793 of 2006 and 365 of 2006 in CWP No. 9083 of 2005, were filed, which were also dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 9.2.2007 (R-2). 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we find that the issues raised in the instant petition have already been considered and answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 26.9.2006 rendered in C.W.P. No. 9060 of 2005 (Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others) and subsequent order dated 2 C.W.P. No. 20709 of 2006 9.2.2007 passed in Review Application No. 312 of 2006 in CWP No. 9060 and 2005 and other connected review applications. Therefore, following the same principle and precedent, we dismiss the present petition being squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment dated 26.9.2006 passed in CWP No. 9060 of 2005 (supra) and order dated 9.2.2007 passed in R.A. No. 312 of 2006 (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 1, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3