IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2752 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 4, 2008 Mamraj Yadav and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. AG, Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. A.K. Pathania, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of 16 writ petitions, which are fully detailed in the footnote. Challenge in these petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, is to the notification bearing No. 32/39/2005-4 1D/1, dated 25.11.2005, issued under Section 4 of C.W.P. No. 2752 of 2007 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and notification bearing No. 32/39/2005-4 1D/1, dated 24.11.2006, issued under Section 6 of the Act, as also for quashing notice dated 8.2.2007, issued under Section 9 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the aforementioned notifications and acquisition proceedings were also subject matter of challenge in C.W.P. Nos. 1793, 1813 and 8015 of 2007. A Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the aforementioned writ petitions, vide detailed order dated 14.12.2007, passed in C.W.P. No. 1793 of 2007 (Smt. Shakuntla and others v. The State of Haryana and others). Further, C.W.P. Nos. 4537, 4538, 4540, 4546, 4552, 4553, 4554, 4557, 9391, 9392 and 12343 of 2007, in respect of same notifications, have been dismissed by the Division Bench, vide order dated 18.12.2007, passed in C.W.P. No. 4537 of 2007 (Mahipat v. State of Haryana and others), in terms of its earlier order dated 14.12.2007, passed in the case of Smt. Shakuntla (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioners could not controvert the aforementioned position. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the record with their able assistance as well as after going through the orders dated 14.12.2007 and 18.12.2007, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned writ petitions, we find that the controversy in the instant petitions is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Shakuntla’s case 2 C.W.P. No. 2752 of 2007 (supra). Therefore, these petitions1 are also dismissed in terms of order dated 14.12.2007, passed in the case of Smt. Shakuntla (supra). A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) February 4, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3 1 BALBIR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2898 OF 2007) BHANA v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2853 OF 2007) GAJRAJ AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2840 OF 2007) GOPAL SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2819 OF 2007) JEET RAM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2831 OF 2007) KRISHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2820 OF 2007) MAHAVIR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2830 OF 2007) MAMRAJ YADAV AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2752 OF 2007) NARESH KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2834 OF 2007) PRABHU AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2899 OF 2007) PRABHU AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2924 OF 2007) PRABHU SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2827 OF 2007) RAM NIWAS AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 4167 OF 2007) ROSHAN LAL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2841 OF 2007) SHEO NARAYAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2806 OF 2007) UDAIBIR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (C.W.P. NO. 2857 OF 2007)