High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCOCP/595/2015dismissed

Brij Mohan v. P. Radhavendra Rao Chief Secretary And ORS

2017-01-30Mr. Justice S.P. Bangarh2 pages

Manoj Kumar 2017.02.01 10:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP No.595 of 2015 #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.595 of 2015 Date of Order: 30.1.2017 Brij Mohan ....Petitioner

Versus

P. Raghavendra Rao and Ors.

....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Shubhra Singh, Addl.A.G, Haryana for respondent No.1.

Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) The petitioner along with other five land owners had filed CWP No.12574 of 1993 challenging the acquisition of their land issued vide Notifications dated 08.2.1989/07.2.1990 under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 respectively. The acquisition was for development of Sector 12 Part II, Karnal and some of the acquired portions of the land of the petitioners fell in the green belt or needed for widening of National Highways. The basis of challenge was the discriminatory release of acquired land pertaining to some similarly situated land owners. This Court vide order dated 21.5.2014 directed the Authorities to release the acquired land of the petitioners except a strip of it, which could be used for green belt or widening of the road. Since the needful was not done, hence the present contempt petition. Upon notice, learned counsel for the respondent points

COCP No.595 of 2015 #2# out that a review application bearing RA-CWP-152-2016 was subsequently filed, which was allowed vide order dated 04.11.2016 thereby recalling order dated 21.5.2014 and ordering the writ petition to be listed for final hearing as per roster. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to refute the aforesaid fact.

In view of the aforesaid development, no further action is warranted in the present contempt and the same is dismissed as infructuous and the rule is discharged.

January 30, 2017 (JASWANT SINGH) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No