IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: January 19, 2010 C.W.P. No. 140 of 2010 Manti Devi and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents C.W.P. No. 220 of 2010 Prithi Chand and others …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. CWP No. 140 of 2010 By this order we propose to dispose of CWP Nos. 140 and 220 of 2010. Both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notification dated 23.5.2001, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and declaration dated 6.5.2004, issued under Section 6 of the Act. It is conceded by the learned State counsel by referring to letter dated 14.1.2010, wherein the Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula, has submitted that the subject matter of these petitions pertains to the same notifications which were challenged in CWP No. 10570 of 2006, titled as Hari Dass Dutt and others v. State of Haryana and others and other bunch of petitions. Those notifications were quashed by this Court in the judgment dated 18.2.2008 (Annexure P-4). A copy of the aforementioned letter is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ in each petition. In respect of the judgment dated 18.2.2008, it is significant to notice that a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (M.M. Kumar, J.) was member, had allowed the bunch of petitions. It was held that notification under Section 6 of the Act had been issued after expiry of more than one year which violated Section proviso (ii) of the Act. It went on to observe: “ In the present case notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.05.2001 (Annexure P-2) and notification under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act was issued a day later on 24.05.2001 (Annexure P- 3). The petitioner filed CWP No. 13391 of 2001. The 2 CWP No. 140 of 2010 Division Bench vide its order dated 08.07.2002 (Annexure P-6) set aside the invoking of urgency provisions and declaration issued under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the Act. As a consequence the petitioners were given the right to file objections under Section 5-A of the Act. They filed objections which were accordingly decided on 06.09.2002. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act has been issued on 06.05.2004 which apparently is far beyond the period of one year from the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. By no stretch of imagination the declaration issued on 06.05.2004 (Annexure P-8) under Section 6 of the Act could stand judicial scrutiny. The right of the petitioners would be prejudiced because they would get the price of the land assessed on the date when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.05.2001 whereas the petitioners would be entitled to the assessment of their land from the proceedings to the issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Act which in this case would be 06.05.2003. Likewise, the amount of interest and solatium would also adversely affect the interest of the petitioners whose land has been acquired. There is thus, flagrant violation of the provision of Section 6 proviso (ii) of the Act. Notification under Section 6 dated 23.05.2001 (Annexure P-3) and 3 CWP No. 140 of 2010 declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 06.05.2004 (Annexure P-8) are liable to be quashed.” Thereafter in respect of same notifications another petition CWP No. 18225 of 208 was also filed where another Division Bench, of which one of us (M.M. Kumar, J.) was member, had followed the earlier view and quashed the notifications vide order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-6). However, a condition was added that the petitioners have to refund the amount of compensation received by those petitioners alongwith statutory interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter. In view of the aforesaid factual position, these petitions are allowed in the same terms as in CWP No. 10570 of 2006, decided on 18.2.2008. However, the petitioners shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-6). A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) January 19, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 4