IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No.7066 of 2008 Date of Decision: May 12,2008 Sham Sunder Sharma ...........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.M.Kumar Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.P.S.Rana,Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Palika Monga, AAG Haryana * * * M.M. Kumar, J. The prayer made in the instant petition is for quashing of notification dated 18.1.2001 which was issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act') (Annexure P1) and also declaration dated 30.12.2004 issued under Section 6 of the Act (Annexure P4). Further prayer has also been made for quashing of all other proceedings pursuant thereto in respect of the petitioner in terms of the judgment dated 12.3.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1123 of 2006 (Annexure P5) (Devander Sagar etc. vs. State of Haryana and others). It could not be successfully disputed that the land in dispute belonging to the petitioner is covered by the notification which was the subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 1123 of 2006 dated 12.3.2008 (Devander Sagar's case). Shorn of unnecessary details, it is suffice to observe that we have quashed the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act on various grounds which may also be read as part of this CWP No.7066 of 2008 -2- order. In that case, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Padma Sundara Rao vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2002 (1) PLJ 397. We have held that no fresh lease of life would be available to the State Government to issue a fresh declaration under Section 6 of the Act and accordingly, the declaration dated 30.12.2004 issued under Section 6 of the Act (Annexure P5) was set aside along with notification dated 18.1.2001 (Annexure P1). Notice of motion of the petition was issued. The necessity of filing the reply is obviated because the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court already rendered in Devander Sagar's case(supra). In view of the above, writ petition is allowed. The notifications under Section 4 and 6 which have already been quashed in Devander Sagar's case (supra) would also enure the benefit to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of the order to the petitioner as well. ( M.M.Kumar ) Judge ( Sabina ) Judge May 12, 2008 arya