- (1.) The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing notification dated 2.6.1999 (P-2), issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (for brevity, 'the Act') and notifications dated 29.5.2000, issued under Section 6 of the Act (P-6 and P-7). The petitioner has claimed that he is owner of one plot on which there is 'A' Class construction made prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is claimed that he has been living there alongwith his family members and that an electric connection has also been got installed in the shops constructed by him. He has also claimed that he is running his business in the premises made prior to the year 1980.
(2.) The case has a chequered history because on 27.8.1981, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued and thereafter a declaration was made under Section 10.1.1983 in respect of the same land. It was on 24.11.1983 that the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 5559 of 1983 and challenged the aforementioned notifications. The dispossession of the petitioner was initially stayed. Fresh notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were issued during the pendency of the earlier petition. However, the earlier petition came up for hearing on 16.5.2003 and following order was passed: " Learned counsel for the respondents on the instructions received from Mr. C.S. Pawria, A.D.A., L.A.C., Panchkula, has stated that the land in dispute in the instant writ petition belonging to Brij Lal (petitioner) was subsequently released from acquisition being out of the lay-out plan. Mr. C.S. Pawria has made this statement before this Court on the basis of the record maintained by the L.A.C. In view of the aforesaid statement, this writ petition has become infructuous. Dismissed as infructuous."
(3.) The instant petition came up for consideration on 14.1.2002. On account of the statement made by the Advocate General, Haryana in C.W.P. Nos. 7972 of 2000 and 7765 of 2001, this petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents that the petitioner shall be given a plot. The order dated 14.1.2002, passed in the instant petition reads thus: " Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is the owner of one Marla of land bearing Rectangle No. 49 Khasra No. 30/17 and that he would be entitled to the allotment of a residential plot on the basis of the decision taken by respondent No. 3, as per the statement made by the learned Advocate General in C.W.P. Nos. 7972 of 2000 and 7765 of 2001. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the respondents shall give a plot to the petitioner along with the petitioners in the connected writ petitions.";