IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 1630 of 1988. Date of Decision: 28th November, 2008. Bishamber Dayal ..Petitioner through Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, Sr. DAG, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 1630 and 1631 of 1988 as both these writ petitions have been directed against the acquisition proceedings initiated vide Notifications dated 23.5.1983 and 20.11.1984 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively. For brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP NO. 1630 of 1988. The petitioner claims to be in possession as a tenant of building measuring 110'x25' bearing Khasra No.4693 [min] Hadbast No. 146, situated within the revenue estate and municipal limits of Hisar. According to the petitioner, he is running Ashoka Flour and Cotton Ginning Mill in the said premises. The afore-stated land was earlier sought to be acquired vide notification dated 28.5.1974 and 1.9.1977 both issued under Section 4 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 12.8.1980. These notifications, however, were quashed by the High Court on 19.7.1982. Thereafter, fresh acquisition has taken place vide the impugned notifications dated 23.5.1983 and 20.11.1984. The petitioner's own case in para no. 14 of the writ petition is that the award has already been announced on 17.3.1986 much before the filing of the writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties for some time and on perusal of the record, it appears that the petitioner's grievance is two fold. Firstly, he has alleged that the land/constructed houses of some prominent persons have been left out from the acquisition and, secondly, nothing has been paid to him while announcing the award, though he is a tenant in the premises. So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, in my considered view, the averments are totally vague and evasive. The particulars of the lands belonging to the alleged influential persons or their location vis-a-vis the acquired land are conspicuously missing from the record. In the absence thereof, no case of unreasonable classification is made out. As regards the second grievance, the petitioner ought to have approached and prove before the before the competent authority that he was a tenant in the subject premises much before the start of the acquisition proceedings and entitled to apportionment of the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to move an application before the Land Acquisition Collector, if already not moved, and to establish their claim for apportionment of the compensation, in accordance with law. The petitioners may move such an application within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received and the same shall be disposed of by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, in accordance with law. No costs. November 28, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE