Satinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 December, 2008

Civil Writ Petition No.13962 of 2008          1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH.

                                 Civil Writ Petition No.13962 of 2008
                                 Decided on         :      17.12.2008

Satinder Singh
                                                   ....Petitioner

                          Versus

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

                   ****

CORAM:HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR.

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH.

****

Present: Mr.Jagat Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.

Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
for respondents No.1 & 2.

Mr.Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.

****

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 petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the

impugned notifications dated 08.06.2007 and 27.02.2008 (Annexures P-1

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

(for brevity ‘the Act) whereby the Government has sought to acquire the
Civil Writ Petition No.13962 of 2008 2

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

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

Notice of motion was issued to the respondents and this Court

has stayed dispossession on 31.10.2008, till the next date of hearing.

Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing on 10.12.2008.

At the hearing today, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has

stated that the respondents have considered the question of releasing the

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

land belonging to the petitioner has been fully released.

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the afore-

mentioned factual position. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has

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

infructuous in respect of the land of the petitioner.

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

rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.

                                                    (M.M.KUMAR)
                                                       JUDGE



December 17, 2008                                   (JORA SINGH)
mamta-II                                                JUDGE