In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P.No.7353 of 2008 Date of Decision:13-05-2008 Gurcharan Singh ---Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. A.S.Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana *** M.M.KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing the acquisition proceedings arising from notification dated 18.1.2001(Annexure P-4) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 30.12.2004 (Annexure P-3) made under Section 6 of the Act as the same have already been quashed by this Court while deciding C.W.P. No. 1123 of 2006 decided on 12.3.2008 (Devender Sagar and others v. State of Haryana). In that case, we have noticed that a C.W.P.No.7353 of 2008 -2- Division Bench of this Court on an earlier occasion have passed order in C.W.P.No. 4887 of 2002 holding that the respondent State was not entitled to invoke the urgency provisions postulated by Section 17 of the Act. The Division Bench had found vide order dated 12.1.2004 that the notification issued under Section 4 would be kept intact granting opportunity to the land owners to file objections under Sections 5A of the Act within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order dated 12.1.2004. The procedure thereafter as provided by the Act was to be followed. However, the acquisition was challenged again in Devender Sagar’s case (Supra) and after detailed examination we had held that the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was after a period of one year and in any case the award passed was beyond the period of two years. The aforementioned judgment in Devender Sagar’s case (Supra)is not a judgment confined to the parties who were the petitioners before us. The benefit of the judgment would enure to all the land owners whose land has been acquired. When the instant petition came up for consideration before us, we have required the learned State counsel to seek instructions while issuing notice of motion on 5.5.2008,. At the hearing today, it could not be successfully argued by learned State counsel that the Division Bench order in Devender Sagar’s case (Supra) would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. Accordingly we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to extend the benefit of judgment dated 12.3.2008 rendered in Davinder Sagar’s case (Supra) to the petitioners as well. As a result, the petitioner has to refund the C.W.P.No.7353 of 2008 -3- amount of compensation received by him along interest which is at the rate of 9% as per provisions of the Act. Writ petition is disposed of. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) JUDGE May 13, 2008 paramjit