- (1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 946 and 947 or 1982, as all the three appeals arise out of the same judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated January 22, 1982.
(2.) THE petitioners, who were the claimants and whose land was being acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called Act), challenged the notification under Section 4, dated November 4, 1977, and the notification dated October 24, 1980, under Section 6 of the Act. The said two notifications were quashed by the learned Single Judge vide order, under appeal, dated January 22, 1982. The notifications were quashed primarily on the ground that the notice under Section 9 issued in the locality was not issued simultaneous and that the notification under Section 6 was issued at the fag end of three years when the earlier notification under Section 4 of the Act, was going to expire.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the claimants-respondents submitted that since Letters Patent Appeal No. 944 of 1982 against this very judgment of the learned Single. Judge has been dismissed today, i. e. , March 13, 1990, as having become in fructuous because of the exchange, therefore, these appeals are also liable to be dismissed as the judgment quashing the said notifications has become final because of the dismissal of the said letters patent appeal. He also submitted that earlier in Civil Writ Petition No. 867 of 1982 (Khosla Foundry v. State of Haryana), decided on August 10, 1982, these very notifications were challenged by Khosla Foundry, and the said writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, argued the learned counsel, in view of these two judgments whereby the impugned notifications were quashed, these appeals are liable to be dismissed as such. He also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No. 974 of 1986 (State of Haryana v. Naval Singh), decided on November 17, 1987, whereby the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the State of Haryana on the ground that since the State of Haryana had already got their appeal dismissed as withdrawn against the same notifications, the appeal was liable to be dismissed.;