In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 15753 of 2006 Date of decision:February 11, 2008 Rohtash and others ---Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Haryana. For respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr.Vishal Sodhi, Advocate for Mr. Arun walia, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.. *** M.M.KUMAR. J. Prayer made in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing notification dated 24.7.2003 (P-3) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and declaration dated 22.7.2004 (P-4) issued under Section 6 of the Act. Challenge has also been made to the notice dated 3.3.2006 (P-5)issued under Section 9 of the Act and award dated 21.7.2006(P-6). In pursuance to the directions issued, the respondents has filed short affidavit dated 8.2.2008 with the the averments that the no award in respect of Khasra Nos. 14//10, 11/1 measuring 10 Kanal- 4 Marla notified under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act issued on 24.7.2003 and 22.7.2004 has been made and announced on 21.7.2006. It has further been pointed out in para 2 of the affidavit that the Government has released the land measuring 10 Kanal-4 C.W.P. No. 15753 of 2006 -2- Marla belonging to the petitioner comprised in aforesaid Khasra numbers. after the issuance of declaration dated 22.7.2004 under Section 6 of the Act. The averments made by the petitioner that the land comprised in aforementioned Khasra Nos. is 14 Kanal-11 Marla whereas the total land is measuring 10 Kanal-4 Marla which has been released. Affidavit dated 8.2.2008 filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3 is taken on record. In view of the above, we do not find any justification for considering the prayer of the petitioner seeking quashing of notifications dated 24.7.2003 (P-3) issued under Sections 4, declaration dated 22.7.2004 (P-4) issued under Section 6 of the Act and the award made under Section 11 of the Act. Accordingly, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and the same is disposed of as such. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S.MANN) JUDGE February 11, 2008 paramjit