C.W.P. No.259 of 2007 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P. No.259 of 2007 Date of decision:January 15, 2008 Anil Kumar and others ---Petitioners Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN *** Present: None for the petitioners. Mr.Ravi Mattoo,Advocate, for Mr. R.S.Madan, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Haryana. for respondents No. 2 and 3.. *** M.M.KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is for quashing notification dated 16.1.2004 (P-1) stated to be issued under Sections 4 and further notice dated 19.12.2005(P-3) issued under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). On perusal of notification dated 16.1.2004, it is found that the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20.1.2003 and in fact, the notification dated 16.1.2004 has been issued under Section 6 of the Act. In the written statement filed by respondent No. 3 -District Town Planner, Sonepat, site plan has been attached showing that the property belonging to C.W.P. No.259 of 2007 -2- the petitioner is situated within 30 meters of the National Highway No. 1 on Panipat-Delhi road. It has been specifically asserted in preliminary submission that the petitioner has raised unauthorised construction (Dhaba) within 30 meters restricted belt along with the Nation Highway No. 1 as depicted in site plan R-1. It is, thus, clear that notification under Section 4 in this case was issued on 20.1.2003 and thereafter notification dated 16.1.2004 has been issued under Section 6 of the Act. The construction has been raised by the petitioner within the restricting limit by constructing Dhaba. The instant petition was filed on 9.1.2007 and it came up for consideration on 11.1.2007. Therefore, there is delay in filing the petition as the notification under Section 4 of the Act has been challenged after a period of about 4 years. Even, otherwise, we do not find any ground to interfere with the aforementioned notification. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S.MANN) JUDGE January 15, 2008 paramjit