CWP No. 15221 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 15221 of 2008 Date of decision 28.1.2010 Sunita Devi ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Mandeep Sachdeva,Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG Punjab Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3. 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against notification 31.5.2004 (P.2) and notification dated 27.5.2005 (P.3) issued under Sections 36 and 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act,1992. A challenge has also been made to the award dated 25.5.2007 (P.4) passed by the Improvement Trust, Jalandhar -respondent no.3. It has remained undisputed that the petitioner has herself addressed a letter to respondent no.2 for disbursement of compensation in respect of the acquisition made in the year 1993 and later in the year 2004. In reply to the aforesaid letter addressed by the petitioner, respondent no.2 sent a reply on 28.7.2008 (R/3/11) informing her that land measuring 9 marlas, shown in the sale deed as well as in the jamabandi for the year 2004-05, was covered by the development scheme of 94.5 acres and 70.5 acres scheme. Out of 9 marlas, the land measuring 6 marlas was acquired by the Trust under the earlier development scheme of 94.5 acres which stood in the names of S/Shri Sadhu Ram, Harbilas and Nachhattar CWP No. 15221 of 2008 2 sons of Shri Batna and the balance land measuring 2.92 marlas has been acquired later in the development scheme of 70.5 acres which stood in the names of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh and Smt. Sunita. She has further been informed that compensation for 2.92 marlas may be collected by her at any time. With regard to enhanced compensation of 6 marlas land which was acquired from S/Shri Sadhu Ram, Harbilas and Nachhattar, the petitioner was informed that no application was moved by them under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is thus clear that not only the petitioner has conceded the factum of acquisition of land whereas the respondents have also offered her compensation which is due to her. It is appropriate to mention that earlier notification was issued on 29.10.1993 and the petitioner acquired proprietary rights on 13.5.1996. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the land belonging to the petitioner has been acquired. However, the only issue which survives for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for any rehabilitation in her capacity as an oustee. Mr. Mandeep Sachdeva, learned counsel for the petitioner states in that regard that he may be given liberty to make an appropriate representation before respondent no.2. If any such representation is made within a period of 30 days from today, then respondent no.2 shall decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Ajay Tewari ) 28.1.2010 Judge okg