IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6865 of 2011 Date of decision: 03.05.2011 Babu Lal and others …..Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Ram Avtar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Advocate Mr.S.S.Patter, Sr.DAG Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to a notification, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) on 25.4.2008, proposing to acquire 3510 acres 5 kanals 1 marla of land, for a public purpose, namely, for setting up of Ch.Devi Lal Industrial Model Township, as integrated complex for Industrial, commercial and other public utilities. Further challenge has been made to a declaration, issued under Section 6 of the Act on 9.3.2009 and 22.4.2009. So far as notification under Section 6 of the Act issued on 9.3.2009 is concerned, the dispute is squarely covered against the petitioners as per ratio of the judgment passed in CWP No.6606 of 2009 titled as Martin and Harris v. State of Haryana, decided on 7.3.2011. CWP No.6865 of 2011 Now dispute remains only with regard to notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act on 25.4.2008 and under Section 6 of the Act on 22.4.2009. As per admitted position, an award was passed on 28.4.2011 for the land only measuring approximately 1100 acres. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioners was noticed by this Court:- “Counsel for the petitioners states that the relief claimed by the petitioners is covered in their favour by ratio of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Brahm Dutt and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) ICC 186. Notice of motion for 3.5.2011. On our asking Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to supply three copies of the writ petition to her during course of the day. Parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding possession of the built-up area, however, on the basis of this order, the petitioners shall not be entitled to get any benefit of the Policy of the State Government dated 26.10.2007 or any other similar Policy issued subsequent thereafter.” At the time of arguments, it was brought to our notice that against the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Dutt and others v. State of Haryana and others, (CWP No.6166 of 2010), decided on 3.2.2011, the State of Haryana has gone in an appeal. However, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.11019 of 2011 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 27.4.2011, by observing as under:- 2 CWP No.6865 of 2011 “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In our view the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity whatsoever. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that notwithstanding dismissal of the special leave petition, the petitioners shall be free to enter into negotiated settlement with the respondents and other land owners.” Counsel for the respondents have failed to show as to why case of the petitioners is not covered by ratio of the judgment in Brahm Dutt’s case (supra). It could also be not disputed that the facts are identical and notifications under challenge, are also the same. The contention of counsel for the petitioners that residential houses of the petitioners have wrongly been ordered to be acquired contrary to the Policy of the State of Haryana dated 26.10.2007 is also not disputed. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the dispute herein is squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by ratio of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Brahm Dutt’s case (supra), accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of that judgment and the petitioners in the present writ petition shall be entitled to the same relief which was granted to the petitioners in that writ petition. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 03.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3