CWP No. 12523 of 2010 and other connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 29.11.2010 CWP No. 12523 of 2010 Gautam Garg and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab etc. ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 11934 of 2010 Manjit Kaur and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab etc. ….. RESPONDENTS CWP No. 13277 of 2010 Usha Devi and others ….. PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Punjab etc. ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ` Present: Mr. G.S.Grewal, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Sanjiv Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of CWP No. 12523 of 2010 titled as Gautam Garg and others vs. State of Punjab etc., CWP No. 11934 of 2010 titled as Manjit Kaur and others vs. State of Punjab etc., and CWP CWP No. 12523 of 2010 and other connected cases 2 No. 13277 of 2010 titled as Usha Devi and others vs. State of Punjab etc. To dictate order, the facts are being taken from CWP No. 12523 of 2010. This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to a notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') on 04.02.2010. Further challenge has been laid to a declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 19.05.2010 proposing to acquire a vast track of land for a public purpose, namely, for widening of the road from Barnala Bypass to Phase IV and V Bathinda. In this writ petition, it is primary grievance of the petitioners that the acquiring authorities are not taking centre of the existing road, rather arbitrarily, land is going to be acquired more on their side, which will lead to demolition of their buildings. In the reply filed, in paragraph No. 3 (preliminary), it has been stated as under:- “3. That no constructed shop or house belonging to the petitioners is being acquired by the answering respondent.” This averment has further been reiterated at the end of paragraph No. 7 by stating as under:- “7. xxx xxx xxx xxx It is further submitted that no house or shop of any of the petitioners falls in the area being acquired. Additionally, the centre of the Katcha Rasta is being taken for widening the road.” In the reply filed, it is specifically stated that to widen the road, centre of the already existing road shall be taken into consideration CWP No. 12523 of 2010 and other connected cases 3 and further that, no house or shop of any of the petitioners falls in the area which is going to be acquired. Mr. Sharma states that ordinarily, to widen the passage, centre of the road will be taken, subject to the slight variation in alignment of the road, if need be, however, without touching construction of any of the petitioners. The averment made in the written statement satisfies the counsel for the petitioners and in terms of above-said undertaking given in the written statement, he wishes to withdraw this writ petition. Ordered accordingly. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE November 29, 2010 pj CWP No. 12523 of 2010 and other connected cases 4