IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: March 2, 2010 CWP No. 3607 of 2010 Baldev Singh and another …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CWP No. 3616 of 2010 Kharak Singh and others …Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate (in CWP No. 3607 of 2010) Mr. Vivek K. Thakuar, Advocate (in CWP No. 3616 of 2010) for the petitioner(s). 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 3607 and 3616 of 2010 because both the petitions challenges notification dated 22.5.2008, issued under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 11.1.2010, made under Section C.W.P. No. 3607 of 2010 6 of the Act. On 30.1.2008, the State of Punjab had issued a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act to acquire 90 acres, 3 Kanals and 11 Marals of Land for a public purpose, namely, for construction of Ring Road Phase-II, Development of junctions and road site amenities, connecting Malout Road to Badal Road, Tehsil and District Bathinda. The aforementioned notification was published in the daily newspaper ‘The Tribune on 15.2.2008. Despite invoking the urgency provisions, no steps were taken by the State of Punjab for about four months and thereafter another notification under Section 4 read with Section 17(1) of the Act was issued on 22.5.2008, seeking to acquire 90 Acres 7 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land for the same public purpose. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 6.6.2008, which was published in the daily newspaper ‘The Tribune’ on 8.6.2008. The aforementioned notifications were challenged in this Court by filing C.W.P. Nos. 10879, 11612, 11777 and 12469 of 2008. On 9.3.2009, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the aforementioned writ petitions and quashed the notifications dated 30.1.2008, 22.5.2008 and 6.6.2008. Thereafter, the respondent State of Punjab filed review applications bearing RA No. 273 of 2009 in CWP No. 10879 of 2008 (Seema Rani and others v. State of Punjab and others) and RA No. 269 of 2009 in CWP No. 11612 of 2008 (Bhushan Kumar and another v. State of Punjab and others), seeking review of the order dated 9.3.2009. On 18.9.2009, the review applications finally came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, which were allowed and the order dated 9.3.2009 was modified to the extent that the notification under Section 4 of 2 C.W.P. No. 3607 of 2010 the Act, will not be treated to have been set aside. However, in the order dated 18.9.2009 it has been specifically mentioned that the benefit of judgment would be applicable to the petitioners only. On 29.9.2009, the Land Acquisition Collector issued notices to the land owners inviting objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector having considered the objections sent his report/recommendations to the State Government for taking final decision in the matter, vide letter dated 12.11.2009. On 11.1.2010, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made acquiring the land in question including the land belonging to the present petitioners. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and perusing the paper books with their able assistance, we find that the matter is no longer res integra. The notifications dated 22.5.2008 and 11.1.2010 were also challenged in CWP No. 1512 of 2010 (Darshan Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others), which came up for our consideration on 4.2.2010. After considering various pleas, which have been sought to be raised in these petitions also, we have dismissed the said petition upholding the acquisition. The only additional argument raised by Mr. Harkesh Manuja is that the District Town Planner, Bathinda, had prepared a ‘Bathinda Draft Outline Master Plan of Local Planning Area, 1996 to 2016’ vide Drawing No. DTP(B) 1147/98, dated 21.8.1998, wherein the entire planning was done regarding future development of District Bathinda including roads and other infrastructure etc. In the said Draft Master Plan, the position of the proposed ring road has also been shown. According to the learned counsel the alignment of the proposed ring road has now been changed without there being any amendment in the master plan or the approval of the 3 C.W.P. No. 3607 of 2010 competent authority just to favour Shri Mohan Lal Garg-respondent No. 5, who is stated to be a local politician. However, despite our repeated queries about the legal sanctity of the said draft plan in the eyes of law, Mr. Manuja has not been able to give any satisfactory answer. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the aforementioned argument. Accordingly, while adopting the reasoning given in the case of Darshan Singh and others (supra), we dismiss these petitions. The office is directed to place a photocopy of this Court on the file of the connected petition, namely, CWP No. 3616 of 2010. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) March 2, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4