CWP No. 676 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 676 of 2010 Date of decision 18 .1.2010 S.K.Malhotra and another ... Petitioners Versus U.T. Chandigarh and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.G.C.Dhuriwala ,Advocate for the petitioners 1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the land belonging to the petitioners by exercising power under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act'). The principal ground taken is that as per the report dated 24.8.2009 submitted by Horticulture Department (P.6) there are already standing trees in the acquired land which existed prior to the issuance of notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. It has remained undisputed that the notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act were issued in the year 1992 (P.1 and P.2) and objections were also filed by the petitioners under Section 5A of the Act. On 4.2.2009 this Court while disposing of a bunch of petition including CWP No. 10798 of 1992 (Inderjit Behal and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ) (P.3) has upheld the legal validity of the process of land acquisition as is evident from its persual. The petitioner was one of the petitioners and the S.L.P. filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. However, in the S.L.P. CWP No. 676 of 2010 2 their Lordships of Hon'ble the Supreme Court have observed that the dismissal of the S.L.P. was not to come in the way of the authorities for consideration of any request of the petitioners in accordance with the law. The time was extended till 31.3.2009. We have heard the learned counsel at a considerable length. The respondent administration has been clamoring to take possession of the land. The acquisition proceedings have already been upheld. After dismissal of the S.L.P. the respondent administration vide letter dated 12.1.2010 (P.9) has again rejected the request of the petitioners for release of their land by exercising power under Section 48(1) of the Act. There is no ground for issuance of any direction to the respondents for either release of land or for any other purpose. The writ petition is complete mis-use of the process of the Court which is not appreciable. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jitendra Chauhan) 18.1.2010 Judge okg