IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18682 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: December 3, 2008 Jagmal Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Takhi, Advocate, for Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. None for respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 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 order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 18682 of 2005 and 19336 of 2006 as common question of law and facts are involved. However, the facts are being referred from CWP No. 18682 of 2005. C.W.P. No. 18682 of 2005 The challenge in these petitions is against notification issued under Section 4 on 11.8.2004 and declaration made under Section 6 on 9.8.2005 (Annexures P-13 & P-16) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). The public purpose for acquisition of the land is for the development and utilisation of land for industrial purpose at Gurgaon and is shown in development plan under the Haryana Development Authority Act, 1977. 2. In the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in Amended CWP No. 18682 of 2005), in para No. 6 of the preliminary objections, it has been clarified that there was a Samadhi and Pyau, total measuring 40’ x 12’ and another Samadhi measuring 10’ x 10’ and 14 shops on the land in dispute at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The aforementioned Samadhi and Pyau have already been released from acquisition. However, the shops have not been released from acquisition. The remaining land belonging to the petitioners was found to be vacant at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It may also be apposite to point out that petitioners in CWP No. 19336 of 2006, namely, Mohinder Singh and Jagmal Singh are also petitioner Nos. 4 and 1 respectively in CWP No. 18682 of 2005. 3. Although award has been announced on 8.12.2006 but the petitioners have approached this Court well before the announcement of the award in the year 2005. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for releasing of shops as the same were admittedly in existence prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In that regard, a detailed representation under Registered A.D. cover may be made by 2 C.W.P. No. 18682 of 2005 the petitioners to the respondents within a period of two weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The representation shall be decided within a period of three months thereafter. 4. Writ petitions stands disposed of accordingly. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 3, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3