C.W.P No. 8571 of 2006 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 8571 of 2006 Date of decision : July 26, 2007 Surinder Kumar Bansal & others ...... Petitioners through Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate v. State of Punjab & others ...... Respondents through Mr.P.C.Goyal, Sr.DAG, Punjab Mr.N.S.Boparai, Advocate, for respondents No.2 & 3. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** RAJIVE BHALLA,J The petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order, dated 25.11.2005 (Annexure P-4), as also the award, dated 17.2.2006 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, PSEB, Patiala. Counsel for the petitioners contends that acquisition C.W.P No. 8571 of 2006 ::2:: proceedings are illegal and void, as no sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioners to put forth their objections. The award pronounced is meager and does not reflect the true market value. It is contended that though land required for a 30/66 KV grid sub station was 1000 to 2000 sq. yards, the respondents issued a notice of acquisition for four acres. The fact that vide order, dated25.11.2005, two acres of land was released, shows that proceedings for acquisition were initiated, without application of mind. Counsel for the Electricity Board, on the other hand, submits that acquisition proceedings have concluded. The award has been pronounced, whereafter the petitioners have received compensation and possession has been taken. Construction for the electric sub station has already commenced and, therefore, the present writ petition be dismissed. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Admittedly, acquisition proceedings commenced in 2000 with the issuance of a notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the award was pronounced, the petitioners have received compensation and possession has already been taken. The respondents have also commenced construction of the electricity sub station. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the acquisition proceedings, at this belated stage. It would be necessary to mention here that out of four acres acquired, two acres have already been released to the petitioners. Thus, we fail to comprehend the petitioners' grievance. However, as the petitioners have not filed an application, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, liberty is granted to them to file the same within a fortnight from the receipt C.W.P No. 8571 of 2006 ::3:: of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforestated liberty. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE July 26, 2007. ( P. SATHASIVAM ) `kk' JUDGE