IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2092 of 2009 Date of decision: February 10, 2009. Shri Jainendra Gurukul ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner claims itself to be the owner of land measuring more than 3 bighas and 16 biswas, comprising khasra numbers described in para 2 of the writ petition and situated within the revenue estate of village Kharak Magoli, District Panchkula. Its grievance is that the aforesaid land is being utilized by the respondents for one or the other ‘public purposes’, namely, construction of litigant sheds and lawyers' chambers etc., in the Judicial Complex at Panchkula without paying any compensation for it. The petitioner's further grievance is that as per the demarcation report, the petitioner's ownership has not been disputed by the respondent-authorities, yet the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula has refused to accept the petitioner’s title over the subject land. Consequently, neither any compensation has been/is being paid to the petitioner nor the said land has CWP No.2092 of 2009 : 2 : been acquired by following the procedure prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and keeping in view the fact that there might be some title dispute between the parties, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to make a comprehensive representation to respondent No.5 along with the supporting documents and on receipt thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula is directed to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In case the petitioner is found to be owner of the subject land, the respondents shall follow the necessary procedure for payment of compensation to the petitioner. It deserved to be noticed that the petitioner has come up with a fair stand that no delay/postponement or obstruction should be caused in the ongoing construction of the litigant-sheds or lawyers' chambers and its claim is confined only to the payment of compensation to which it is entitled in the law. It is accordingly clarified that the ongoing construction of the litigant sheds/lawyers' chambers shall not be delayed or postponed for any reason, whatsoever, but the petitioner's claim regarding payment of compensation shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Dasti. February 10, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge