IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2547 of 2007 Date of Decision: April 07,2008 M/s Ajit Industries ...........Petitioner Versus The Improvement Trust, Hoshiarpur and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Onkar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for the respondents * * * M.M. Kumar, J. The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition is for issuance of direction to the respondents to restore the electric connection to the petitioner, installed at its Saw Mill situated in Mohalla Harkishan Nagar, Rahimpur near Mahavir Spinning Mills, Hoshiarpur, It is undisputed that after issuance of notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (for brevity `the Act') and filing of objections under Section 38 of the Act, a notification under Section 42 of the Act was issued on 10.7.1995. Even the writ petition filed against the aforesaid acquisition was dismissed by this Court on 7.10.2002 which included CWP No. 1144 of 1997 (Annexure R1). On the basis of order passed in CWP No. 2838 of 2006, decided on 13.7.2006, the petitioner has claimed that it is entitled to be considered for the release of CWP No. 2547 of 2007 -2- its land or providing of facilities in terms of resolution No.20 dated 27.2.2004 (Annexure R-5). It is further admitted that the operation of the aforesaid resolution was suspended by the Government on 12.4.2004 (Annexure R-6). However, this Court had directed the State Government to take a final decision on the resolution. Be that as it may, the land belonging to the petitioner has vested in the State Government and is free from any encumbrances after issuance of notification under Section 42 of the Act as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Professor Jodh Singh vs. The Jullunder Improvement Trust (1982) 88 PLR 308. The prayer of the petitioner for restoration of its electric connection cannot be considered as petitioner is neither owner of the land nor it can be permitted to continue with the possession of that premises. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. ( M.M.Kumar ) Judge ( Sabina ) Judge April 07, 2008 arya