IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 10744 of 2011 Date of decision:29th August, 2011 Ratan Pal and another .......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate . Mr. S.S.Patter, Senior DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) On 3.06.2011, the following order was passed:- “It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that an award has been passed on 14.06.2010, however, the petitioners are still in possession of the land under acquisition, have not received any compensation and as per information supplied, the compensation, even has not been deposited with the Collector. To say that the petitioners can challenge the acquisition, reliance has been placed Civil Writ Petition No. 10744 of 2011 upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3779 of 2011 titled as Prahlad Singh and others v. Union of India and others, decided on 29.4.2011. By making reference to the judgment passed in CWP No. 9065 of 2010 titled as Rohtash and others v. State of Haryana and others decided on 21.11.2010, counsel further submits that qua the notifications under challenge in this writ petition, vide the judgment mentioned above, notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) was quashed and liberty was granted to the land owners to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Counsel further says that the petitioners are also entitled to get similar benefit. Notice of motion for 12.08.2011. Dispossession of the petitioners shall remain stayed till further orders. However, this order shall not give any right to the petitioners to raise any further construction.” Admittedly, land has been acquired for the development and utilisation of land for sector roads for sector 81 to 95 at Gurgaon under the provisions of Sections 4 and 6 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). Learned counsel for the petitioner states that some land 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 10744 of 2011 owners who were also aggrieved by these notifications, under challenge in this writ petition, filed writ petitions which were disposed of by passing an order in CWP No. 9065 of 2010 titled as Rohtash and others v. State of Haryana and others decided on 21.11.2010. Vide that judgment declaration under Section 6 of the Act and also an award passed in consequent thereto, were quashed and liberty was granted to the land owners to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. By stating as above, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that a similar treatment be given to the petitioners. The State counsel on getting instructions, on telephone from Shri T.C.Gupta, Director General, Urban Estates Department, Haryana, Panchkula informs the Court to dispose of this case in terms of Rohtash's case (supra). In view of the statements made above by the counsel for the parties, we dispose of this civil writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered in Rohtash's case(supra) and it is directed that the petitioners be given an opportunity to file objections to the proposed acquisition and hearing before taking any decision thereon, within a month from today. [JASBIR SINGH] JUDGE [AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH] JUDGE 29th August, 2011 Shivani Kaushik 3