CWP No.18977 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.18977 of 2007 Date of decision: 4.2.2009 Jagir Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Manohar Lal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 2 . -.- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J. (Oral) 1. This petition seeks direction for exempting land of the petitioner from acquisition initiated vide notification dated 3.8.1963 under the provisions of Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922. 2. Case of the petitioner is that the land was acquired in pursuance of Development Scheme and award announced on 3.6.1964. Thereafter on introduction of a policy for exempting built up area, representation dated 12.6.2006 was made but no decision was taken thereon. 3. In the reply filed on behalf of the State, stand taken is that the representation of the petitioner was duly considered and rejected vide order dated 17.8.2006 (Annexure R-1). It was also noticed that the petitioner also filed a suit which had been dismissed. In the reply of the Trust it is stated CWP No.18977 of 2007 2 that in view of acquisition, Sh. Onkar Mal, the original owner predecessor of the petitioner was allotted a plot of 384 sq. yards which was accepted by him in lieu of acquisition. Construction of 18 shops on the acquired land are illegal. The petition itself has been filed after 45 years of acquisition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the civil litigation was not initiated by the petitioner but by the tenants of the property and that Improvement Trust continues to release the land even today out of the acquired land. 5. We direct the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab to look into this aspect and take steps in accordance with law to prevent power of release being exercised after completion of process of acquisition. 6. As regards the present case, we find that the original owner predecessor of the petitioner had accepted a plot in lieu of acquisition. It is now not open to the petitioner to challenge the acquisition at this stage. 7. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 4.2.2009 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) mk JUDGE