SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is conceded by the learned state counsel by referring to letter dated 13.01.2010, wherein Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula has submitted that the subject matter of this petition pertains to the same notifications which were challenged in CWP No.10570 of 2006 titled as Hari Dass Dutt & others vs. State of Haryana & others and other bunch of petitions. Those notifications were quashed by this Court in the judgement dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure P-4). A copy of this letter is taken on record as Mark 'A'.

(2.) In respect of the judgment dated 18.02.2008, it is significant to notice that a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (M.M.Kumar, J.) was member, had allowed the bunch of petitions. It was held that notification under Section 6 of the Act had been issued after expiry of more than one year which violated Section 6 proviso(ii) of the Act. It went on to observe:

(3.) Thereafter in respect of same notifications another petition CWP No.18225 of 2008 was also filed where another Division Bench, of which one of us (M.M.Kumar, J.) was member, had followed the earlier view and quashed the notifications vide order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-7). However, a condition was added that the petitioners have to refund the amount of compensation received by those petitions alongwith statutory interest at the rate of 9% interest for the first year and 15% thereafter. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in CWP No.10570 of 2006 decided on 18.02.2008. However, the petitioner shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-7).