IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21016 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 14, 2011 Pohap Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. MR. MR. MR. JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. Learned counsel has attempted to argue that the notification issued on 11.2.2011 (P-9) under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) is beyond the period of one year of the notification dated 5.2.2010, issued under Section 4 of the Act (P-1). However, clause (ii) of the first un-numbered proviso of Section 6 of the Act categorically states that the period of one year is to be counted from the date of publication of the notification. According to Section 6(2) the last date of such publication and giving of public notice shall be regarded as the crucial date for counting one year. 2. Faced with the aforesaid situation, learned counsel requests for withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file fresh one after placing on record the aforesaid documents or any other document to be used for advancing the arguments. CWP No. 21016 of 2011 2 3. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) November 14, 2011 November 14, 2011 November 14, 2011 November 14, 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE Pkapoor