BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is third round of litigation between the petitioners and the respondent State. The prayer made in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is for quashing notification dated 16.11.2000 (P-1) issued by the respondent State under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act') and declaration dated 29.6.2001 (P-3), issued under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners have filed objections under Section 5A of the Act before the Land Acquisition Collector-respondent No. 2. Some of the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.P. Nos. 10887 of 2001 and 11730 of 2001, challenging the impugned notifications. The petitioners have alleged that the State Government, before the Court, agreed to grant them alternative site and also consider, in the alternative, the question of acquiring another piece of land for construction of bus stand, and thus releasing the petitioners' land. Accordingly, the writ petitions were withdrawn at that stage vide order dated 28.7.2001 and subsequent orders dated 14.11.2002 and 5.5.2003.

(2.) ON the allegation that the respondent State did not comply with the promise made in the earlier litigation, the petitioners filed C.W.P. No. 2377 of 2005, which was disposed off on 24.8.2006 by a Division Bench of this Court (P-4). A perusal of the order (P-4) shows that a decision was taken by the State Government to allot space to each of the 25 persons who were running their shops, which were constructed in an area of 3 Kanals of land of the earlier proposed acquisition. The order of the Division Bench, dated 24.8.2006 is extracted below for facility of reference :-

(3.) THE respondents have filed their written statement and has taken the stand that the land in question is being acquired for providing a modern efficient bus stand for City Ropar with public safety and convenience in mind. There is justification provided for acquiring land for construction of the bus stand. It is pleaded that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches and that the petitioners were parties in the earlier petition bearing CWP No. 2377 of 2005 and, therefore, they have no right to file a second petition.