IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3076 of 2011 Date of decision: 21.02.2011 Raghubir Singh …..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate Mr.Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash a notification dated 27.4.2000 (P2), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act), proposing to acquire 3 acres 2 kanal 5 marla of land for a public purpose, namely, ‘for establishment of Wireless Monitoring Station at Jalandhar’. Further challenge has been made to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act on 16.5.2001 (P3). Primary contention of counsel for the petitioner, for grant of relief, is that after issuance of the above said notifications, some land out of the land under acquisition, was released in favour of two land owners and further that the land is lying vacant and it has not been used for the purpose, for which it was acquired. We feel that on the contentions raised, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. It is not in dispute that earlier also, the petitioner came to this Court by filing CWP No.15225 of 2001, challenging the above said acquisition. The said writ petition was dismissed on merits by a Division Bench of this Court on 4.10.2001. It appears that qua the other land owners Civil Writ Petition No.3076 of 2011 also, their writ petition was dismissed, however, they went to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where statement was made by the State Government in Civil Appeal No.10 of 2006 and land measuring 1 kanal 1 marla was released in favour of a land owner. So far as the petitioner is concerned, above order has become final. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that some more land was released, however, in that regard, no proof has been furnished in the Court at the time of arguments. It is also not in dispute that by raising similar grounds of leaving out of land in favour of other land owners, the petitioner filed another writ petition bearing No.15001 of 2006 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 1.10.2007. Perusal of the order indicates that no liberty was reserved by the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. If the petitioner was convinced regarding the ground of discrimination in the year 2007, he should have got order passed on merits, instead of getting his writ dismissed as withdrawn. Once, he has withdrawn his writ petition, after a gap of more than three years, he cannot be allowed to file a fresh writ petition on those very grounds, which were available to the petitioner at the time when his second writ petition was dismissed. Further contention of counsel for the petitioner that the land has not been used for the purpose, for which it was acquired, we feel that after such a long time, on that ground also, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 21.02.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 2