IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21299 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 19, 2008 Nirmal Mahendru …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondents to grant compensation to her at par with the other land owners whose land has been acquired vide notification dated 7.9.1992 or refer her case to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). C.W.P. No. 21299 of 2008 2. The aforesaid prayer has been made after the petitioner has availed the remedy of filing reference to the Reference Court and the Regular First Appeal, which culminated into order dated 7.7.2003 (P-6) passed in LPA No. 455 of 2002 by this Court. On the ground that other land owners have gone to Hon’ble the Supreme Court and vide order dated 27.10.2004 (P-7) the matter was remanded back to the Reference Court which has enhanced compensation on 12.1.2008 (P-8) he has sought directions from this Court. 3. We are afraid that no petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable in the aforementioned facts and circumstances. The only remedy available to the petitioner was to challenge the order of the Letters Patent Bench, dated 7.7.2003 (P-6) before Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the instant petition fails being not maintainable and the same is dismissed on that ground. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail any remedy in accordance with law. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 19, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 2