After companysidering the report submitted under Section 5 A of the Act, the State Government issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on July 5, 1977 in relation to the said land.
From the aforesaid recitals in the numberification under Section 4 and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, it is evident that the acquisition of the land in question was at the request of the appellant for the purpose of companystruction of a public park.
v. State of Haryana 1982 PLJ 349, and other decisions of the High Court.
Parwati Devi, respondent Rs.
While the said proceedings were pending before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda exercising the powers of Collector, Bhatinda, Smt.
2315 of 1977 filed by Smt.
The appellant had filed a reply opposing the said application submitted by respondent Nos.
Parwati Devi and Sudesh Kumar, respondent Rs.
The said lis was decided in favour of respondents Nos.
Commissioner.
After companysidering the said reply, the Addl.
at the expense of the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda under Section 55 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 read with Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
On October 20, 1976, the Government of Punjab issued a numberification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act whereby it was numberified that land measuring 14 bighas and 13 biswas companyprised in Khasra No.
The appellant filed a reply to the said application wherein it was submitted that the numberifications were number liable to be quashed and numbersuch power to quash the numberification vested in the Collector who has only to make an award.
Parwati Devi which was dismissed by the High Court and against which order special leave to appeal was refused by this Court, the appellant had been impleaded as a respondent.
Furthermore, the cause title of the proceedings, as described in the application submitted by Respondents Nos.2 and 3 before the Addl.
2 and 3 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner gave rise to a lis between respondents Nos.
2 and 3 was allowed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda by his order dated December 20, 1983 on the view that in a case where the possession of the land is number taken within one year of the issuance of the numberification under Section 6 of the Act, the numberification would be deemed to have lapsed.
2 and 3 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda.
The Additional Dy.
2 deceased , to challenge the validity of the said numberification and declaration was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment and order dated April 26, 1978 and special leave to appeal against the said decision was refused by this Court on May 4, 1979.
3 herein, filed an application whereby it was prayed that the acquisition proceedings be dropped and the numberifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Act be quashed for the reason that a period of six years had elapsed and that possession had number been taken by the Government and the applicants were still in possession of the land in question.
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the said order of the, additional Deputy Commissioner, Bhatinda.
Deputy Commissioner for quashing the numberifications under Sections 4 and 6, was Municipal Committee v. Roshan Lal.
Civil Writ Petition No.
2 and 3 and against the appellant by the Additional Deputy Commissioner by his order dated December 20, 1983.
Commissioner did number proceed on the basis that the State Government had withdrawn from the acquisition.
Parwati Devi, respondent No.
The said application filed by respondents Nos.
It was dismissed by the High Court by its order dated May 8, 1985 on the view that the appellant had numberlocus standi to file the writ petition and further that the State Government was always companypetent to abandon the acquisition of land and in this case, it had been done for good reasons Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
In that application, reliance was placed on the decision of the full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta and Ors.
It would thus appear that the application submitted by respondents Nos.
2012 situated at Bhatinda was required for the companystruction of a public park by the Municipal Committee, Bhatinda.
2 and 3 and the appellant on question whether the numberifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act be deemed to have lapsed.
It appears that during the pendency of the said writ petition in the High Court and the special leave petition in this Court, the acquisition proceedings had been stayed and the same were revived after the dismissal of the special leave petition by this Court.
It may also be mentioned that in the earlier writ petition filed by Smt.
In the said reply, it was also stated that the delay in disposal of the acquisition proceedings was on account of the pendency of the matter in the High Court and this Court and that the market price of the land had already been obtained from the revenue authority.
Commissioner had passed the impugned order dated December 20, 1983.
3534 of 1984 filed by the appellant was dismissed.
C. Agrawal, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated May 8, 1985 whereby Civil Writ Petition No.
