CWP No. 3831 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P.No. 3831 of 2008 Date of decision 29 .4.2008 Harnek Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Polika Monga, AAG Haryana. M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition prays for quashing notification dated 17.4.1952 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity 'the Act') and notification dated 10.12.1953 issued under Section 6 of the Act ( Annexures P.1 and P.2 respectively). According to the short affidavit filed by the respondents the petitioners have no concern with the land in question whatsoever and in any case they cannot be permitted to challenge the acquisition proceedings after more than 50 years. It has been pointed out that the award in this case had been announced by the Land Acquisition Officer, Hissar on 15.12.1954 ( Annexure P.12) and the compensation was also paid to the right holders as is evident from Annexure P.13. It has been further explained that the provincial government acquired the land for the purpose of brick kiln when the construction of Bhakra Main Branch was going on. After completion of the work the land was leased out yearly. Even the proceedings under the Public Premises Act for getting the land vacated were filed and a reference CWP No. 3831 of 2008 2 has also been made to a judgement of this Court rendered in the case of RSA No.3042 of 2006 titled as 'Lilu Singh and other s v. State of Haryana and others' which was dismissed on 23.1.2007 ( Annexure R./2). A perusal of the memo of parties in the appeal would show that Lilu was also son of Shobha as is petitioner No.2 Tarsem. The findings recorded by the Courts below have been affirmed by this Court. It has been observed that Lilu Singh and others or their fore fathers were not the owner of the suit land and the land in question vest in mustarka malkan which was duly acquired and the compensation for the same stands paid. Therefore, we are of the considered view the petitioners who are similarly situated to those who had civil litigation culminating in dismissal of RSA No.3042 of 2006 on 23.1.2007, cannot be permitted to assail the acquisition proceedings after such a long time. The argument of the learned counsel that consolidation proceedings were in progress at the time of earlier acquisition and the land in question has never been acquired cannot be accepted in the face of findings given by this Court. There is thus no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Sabina) 29.4.2008 Judge okg