CWP No.2042 of 1989 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 2042 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.7.2009 Ashok Kumar and another ....Petitioners. vs. State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.D.ANAND --- Present: Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Surinder K.Bishnoi, Deputy Advocate General Haryana, for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. None for respondent No.2. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. (Oral) During the course of hearing, the solitary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners, was that khasra No.1358 or 1358-min is not existing on the record. It is pointed out that even khasra No.7001/5231/1358 had been partitioned and split up into various parts. As such, it is submitted that the inclusion of khasra No.1358 or 1358-min in the impugned notification has no effect on the land in dispute bearing khasra Nos.7001/5231/1358/2. In order to advance the instant contention, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Pardeep Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.5379 of 1990 decided on 31.3.2004). In so far as the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, we are of the view that,as of now, CWP No.2042 of 1989 (O&M) 2 there is no reason for the petitioners to seek any relief consequent upon the issuance of the impugned notifications dated 28.3.1985 and 16.1.1986 issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specially in view of the motion Bench order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 21.5.2009, wherein it was , inter alia, noticed as under:- “ From the facts on record, it is clear that the original petitioners have already sold the land and left with no interest. The subsequent purchasers can only have right to compensation and cannot have right to challenge the acquisition” Since it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners have already sold the land acquired through the aforesaid notifications, we find no reason to deal with the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Needless to mention that if the subsequent purchasers are interested to pursue the issue canvassed hereinabove, it would be open to them to do so, if they are so advised, by initiating independent proceedings in accordance with law. Disposed of accordingly. ( J.S.Khehar) Judge (S.D.Anand) Judge July 16, 2009 rk