CWP No. 10676 of 1989 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10676 of 1989 Date of Decision: December 19, 2011 Smt. Rani Devi and others …Petitioners Versus Secretary to Government, Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. I.K. Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M.S. Kohli, Advocate Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate Mr. S.K. Pipat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manoj Kumar Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner(s). 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. 1. This order shall dispose of three petition* as the common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions. In all the petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of notification dated 28.06.1989 (P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and a declaration dated 29.06.1989 (P-2) issued under Section 6 of the Act. 2. On 08.09.2011, Mr. T.C. Gupta, Director General, Urban CWP No. 10676 of 1989 -2- Estate Department had stated before this Court that most of the construction was in existence when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. He was directed to file an affidavit in consultation with the Financial Secretary, Urban Estate Department as to how the construction of the petitioners who appears to be poor persons, could be saved. In the affidavit, it was also to be stated if there was any area in the State of Haryana comprised of green belt which might have been compromised to save the existing building. 3. Mr. Gupta, has assured the Court that the efforts could be made to save most of the construction belonging to the petitioners if the petitioners were to agree with the suggestion made by the Department. Accordingly, the matter appears to have been discussed by the authorities and on 19.12.2011, a communication has been sent by the Director General Urban Estates Department, Haryana to the Advocate General Office to the effect that the Governnment has decided to release thickly built up area measuring 1.304 acres (excluding the area forming part of the sector road). The site plan has also been placed on record, which is mark 'X' and the release area has been depicted by Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. The site plan has been taken on record to avoid any dispute and confusion and the same has been seen by the counsel for the petitioners who have expressed their concurrence that the thickly constructed area would be excluded from the acquisition but the area forming part of the sector road would continue to be under acquisition. 4. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners CWP No. 10676 of 1989 -3- do not want to press the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions have been rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such. 5. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 19, 2011 Atul Sr. No. Party Names Writ Petition No. 1 Smt. Rani Devi and others v. Secretary to Govt. Haryana and others CWP No. 10676 of 1989 2 Raman Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others CWP No. 1947 of 1994 3 Manmohan Sharma v. State of Haryana and others CWP No. 16754 of 1992 (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE December 19, 2011 Atul