High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mukut Bihari & Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukut Bihari & Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 December, 2008
Civil Writ Petition No.17061 of 2008             1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH.

                               Civil Writ Petition No.17061 of 2008
                               Decided on         :      17.12.2008

Mukut Bihari & others
                                                 ....Petitioners

                         Versus


State of Haryana and others.
                                                 ....Respondents.

           ****

CORAM:HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR.

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH.


                  ****

Present:    Mr.Puneet Bali, Advocate,
            for the petitioners.

Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr.Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.

****

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the

impugned notifications dated 08.06.2007 and 27.02.2008 (Annexures P-2

and P-5), issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(for brevity ‘the Act) whereby the Government has sought to acquire the

land for public purpose namely for extension of Industrial Growth in village

Rudh, Chirahara, Banipur, Bawal, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari.

On 25.09.2008, notice of motion was issued to the respondents
Civil Writ Petition No.17061 of 2008 2

and this Court had ordered maintaining of status quo till the next date of

hearing. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing on 22.10.2008.

At the hearing today, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has

stated that the respondents have considered the question of releasing the

land of the writ petitioners from acquisition. He has further stated that the

land belonging to all the petitioners has been fully released except Rect

No.48 Killa No.5 & 6/1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the afore-

mentioned factual position. However, learned counsel for the petitioners

has prayed that the writ petition be disposed of as having been rendered

infructuous with liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate

representation to respondent No.1, for releasing of their rest land, if it is

possible, in accordance with law.

In view of the above, the present writ petition has been

rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. However, the petitioners

are at liberty to move an appropriate representation for seeking further

release of their land. The needful shall be done within a period of one

month under Registered A.D. cover. If any such representation is made, the

same shall be considered by respondent No.1 and be disposed of within two

months from the date of receipt of such representation.




                                                  (M.M.KUMAR)
                                                     JUDGE




December 17, 2008                                 (JORA SINGH)
mamta-II                                              JUDGE
 Civil Writ Petition No.17061 of 2008   3