IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2316 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: May 12, 2010 Gurbachan Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the notification dated 23.2.2007 (P-4), de-notifying the earlier notifications issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). It is conceded position that the issues raised in the instant petition is no longer res integra, and the same stands settled by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of C.W.P. No. 2316 of 2010 Gurkirpal Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) and Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Revenue and others (CWP No. 10511 of 2007, decided on 9.5.2008., Annexure P-6). In the above mentioned case, after referring to the provisions of Section 48 of the Act and various judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of State of M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma, AIR 1966 SC 1593; Lt. Governor of H.P. v. Sri Avinash Sharma, AIR 1970 SC 1576; Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah, (2005) 12 SCC 508; Pratap v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 3 SCC 1; Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority of India, (1997) 9 SCC 132; Printers (Mysore) Ltd. v. M.A. Rasheed, (2004) 4 SCC 460; Mandir Shree Sitaramji alias Shree Sitaram Bhandar v. Land Acquisition Collector, AIR 2005 SC 3581; Balmokand Khatri Educational and Industrial Trust, Amritsar v. State of Punjab, (1996) 4 SCC 212; Balwant Narayan Bhagde v. M.D. Bhagwat, AIR 1975 SC 1767; Union of India v. Jaswant Rai Kochhar, (1996) 3 SCC 491; Ravi Khullar v. Union of India, (2007) 5 SCC 231; State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Deoman Rai alias Kalal, (1990) 3 SCC 579; Bhagat Singh v. State of U.P., (1999) 2 SCC 384; S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., AIR 1990 SC 10; and Northern Indian Glass Industries v. Jaswant Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 335, it has been concluded that once the land is acquired in accordance with the procedure established by law, award has been announced and the possession taken then there is no 2 C.W.P. No. 2316 of 2010 provision in the Act to de-notify the land and restore back possession to the land owners. Moreover, the factual position in the instant petition is also similar to that of Gurkirpal Singh;s case (supra). Same notification dated 23.2.2007 (P-4) is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition, which has already been adjudicated upon by the Division Bench in Gurkirpal Singh’s case. We are satisfied that the instant petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Gurkirpal Singh (supra). Accordingly, this petition succeeds in terms of the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Gurkirpal Singh (supra). (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) May 12, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3