CWP No. 16280 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16280 of 2001 Date of decision: 14.09.2010 Tripta Chandel w/o Hawaldar Tarsem Singh Chandel ….. PETITIONER VERSUS Union of India and others ….. RESPONDENTS CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. P.C.Dhiman, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. *** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL) This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued to direct the respondents to exempt the residential plot of the petitioner from acquisition, which was initiated by issuing a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 17 of the Act on 10.03.1999. In this writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioner had purchased 7 marlas of plot in the year 1977, by stating that she has no CWP No. 16280 of 2001 2 other residential unit, a prayer has been made that the authorities be directed to release her land from acquisition. In the reply filed, it has been stated that notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on 19.03.1999. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued on 23.03.1999. Award was passed on 18.01.2000. At the time of hearing, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 states that possession of the land in dispute might have been taken and utilized by the authorities before passing interim order by this Court and it might have been utilized for the purpose it was acquired. Counsel further states that the petitioner is at liberty to apply to get a plot under the oustees quota. If she is eligible, a plot of suitable size shall be allotted to her as per the scheme. It is an admitted fact that this writ petition having been filed after passing of the Award, possibly cannot be entertained in view of ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Industrial Development and Investment Company (P) Limited, (1996) 11 SCC 501; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs. Shah Hyder Beig, (2000) 2 SCC 48; C.Padma vs. Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 SCC 627; Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 698 and M/s Swaika Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan, JT 2008 (2) SC 280. Furthermore, in the writ petition, no tangible reasons have been given as to on what basis directions can be issued to the respondents to release land of the petitioner. CWP No. 16280 of 2001 3 In view of facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to apply for getting a plot under oustees quota, as per her entitlement. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE September 14, 2010 pj