CWP No. 4873 of 1990 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4873 of 1990 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 26, 2011 The Panchwati Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Sudharshan Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Haryana. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. C.M. No.16036-37 of 2011 Civil Misc. Applications are allowed. Additional facts are taken on record. Main Case. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing of notification dated 26.12.1988 (P-6) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 22.12.1989 (P-8) issued under Section 6 of the Act. 2. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Risal Singh and CWP No. 4873 of 1990 (O&M) -2- others v. State of Haryana (CWP No. 3550 of 1990 decided on 09.11.2011). 3. It has also remained undisputed that land measuring 50.3 acres was not initially added in the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act. Subsequently, a corrigendum was issued on 18.03.1990 which included the land of the petitioner. The aforesaid corrigendum is obviously beyond the period of one year and the land of the petitioner could not have been included in the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act as has already been held by us in the aforesaid judgment. The case of the petitioner is even at the same footing as that of Risal Singh's case which this Court has decided, insofar the question of hostile discrimination is concerned. 4. The argument of Mr. Kamal Sehgal, learned Addl. A.G., Haryana that the petition has been filed after the award would not prevail because the notification which has lapsed, cannot be revived even by pronouncement of the award. We feel that the argument does not require any detail consideration and therefore, we reject the same. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in the same terms as that of the case of Risal Singh. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE November 26, 2011 Atul