IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18225 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: October 24, 2008 Krishna Devi and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 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. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notification bearing No. LAC(P)-NTLA-2001/4220, dated 23.5.2001 (P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration bearing No. LAC(P)- NTLA-2004/3498, dated 6.5.2004 (P-3) issued under Section 6 of the Act, whereby land has been sought to be acquired for a public purpose, namely, for construction of roads, residential, commercial and institutional area in Sectors 9 and 14, Kurukshetra. C.W.P. No. 18225 of 2008 On 21.10.2008, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the notifications impugned in the instant petition have already been quashed by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (M.M. Kumar, J) was a member, in the case of Hari Dass Dutt and others v. State of Haryana and others (C.W.P. No. 10570 of 2006, decided on 18.2.2008, Annexure P-4). Accordingly, we have issued notice of motion for today for final disposal. In the case of Hari Dass Dutt (supra) the Division Bench has found that declaration under Section 6 of the Act (P-3) has been issued after the expiry of period of one year which is in flagrant violation of the provisions of proviso (ii) of Section 6 of the Act because notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.5.2001 (P-1) and thereafter notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued a day later i.e. on 24.5.2001. Some of the land owners filed C.W.P. No. 13391 of 2001 and a Division Bench vide order dated 8.7.2002 set aside invoking of urgency provisions and declaration under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. The petitioners in CWP No. 13391 of 2001 were given the right to file objections under Section 5A of the Act. The objections were filed which were decided on 6.9.2002. On 6.5.2004, again declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued, which apparently was far beyond the period of one year from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. In these circumstances, the Division Bench quashed the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, dated 23.5.2001 (P-1) and declaration under Section 6 of the Act, dated 6.5.2004 (P-3). 2 C.W.P. No. 18225 of 2008 In the present case, the petitioners also represented to the respondents on 28.4.2008 and requested for release of their land from acquisition in view of judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Hari Dass Dutt (supra). However, no response has been received by them. The petitioners have also asserted that the notifications which are subject matter of challenge in the instant petition have also been quashed by this Court in the cases of Devender Sagar and others v. State of Haryana (C.W.P. No. 1123 of 2006, decided on 12.3.2008) and Om Parkash Grover and another v. State of Haryana (C.W.P. No. 9798 of 2008, decided on 29.7.2008, Annexure P-6). At the hearing, learned State counsel has not been able to successfully argue that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Dass Dutt (supra) is distinguishable and ratio of the same is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to extend the benefit of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hari Dass Dutt (supra) to the petitioners as well. As a result, the petitioners have to refund the amount of compensation received by them alongwith interest which is at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter as per provisions of the Act. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) October 24, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3