High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Girdhari Lal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 December, 2008

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Girdhari Lal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 December, 2008
Civil Writ Petition No.17085 of 2008          1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH.

                                Civil Writ Petition No.17085 of 2008
                                Decided on         :      17.12.2008

Girdhari Lal
                                                  ....Petitioner

                           Versus

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

                    ****

CORAM:HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR.

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH.


                    ****

Present:       Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate,
               for the petitioner.

Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
for respondents No.1 to 5.

Mr.Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate,
for respondent No.6.

****

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 P14

and P18), 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.17085 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 and

10.12.2008.

At the hearing today, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has

stated that the respondents have considered the question of releasing the

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

3 Kanal 2 Marla of total land, 1 Kanal 16 Marla of land has been released to

the petitioner.

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 with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate

representation to respondent No.1, for releasing his remaining 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 petitioner is

at liberty to move an appropriate representation for seeking further release

of his 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.17085 of 2008   3