IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2585 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.2.2008 Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the house belonging to the petitioner from acquisition, which has been constructed over land measuring 9 marlas, falling in Khewat/Khatauni No. 759/866, Khasra No. 79//25/2 (3-0), 1995, 96, situated in village Sohana, Tehsil and District Mohali. In the alternate it has been prayed that respondents be directed to disburse compensation qua the said land or to regularise the construction made by the petitioner, inasmuch as, Rs. 2,500/- have already been deposited by him with respondent No. 3, vide receipt dated 13.12.2005 (P-2). In this regard, the petitioner has also made representations dated 6.12.2007 and 28.12.2007 (P-4 & P-5). We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the paper book. Before disposing of this writ petition we would refer to the views of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Salem C.W.P. No. 2585 of 2008 Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344. In paras 38 and 39 of the judgment it has been required that whenever notice under Section 80 C.P.C. or under any similar provision are sent then it is mandatory on the part of State or Central Government or other authorities to send reply to such notice. It is well settled that before seeking a direction or a writ of mandamus, a demand justice notice is required to be served on the respondents as has been done in the present case. The petitioner has sent representations dated 6.12.2007 and 28.12.2007 (P-4 & P-5), to which no reply is stated to have been received. It has also been observed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that in cases where such like notice has not been replied then cost is required to be imposed. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition at this stage with a direction to respondent No. 2 to take a decision on the representations dated 6.12.2007 and 28.12.2007 (P-4 & P-5), by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) February 22, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 2