CWP-22524-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CWP-22524-2024 Date of decision : 07.07.2026 Inderjeet Kaur ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Lavish, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P-25). 2. On 09.09.2024, the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order:- “Present:- Mr. Tushar Wadhawa, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner (s). Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. **** DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:46 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-22524-2024 2 A perusal of the impugned order dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P-25) would go on to show that the petitioner had filed the petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the enhancement of the compensation had been allowed and the amount of compensation and the enhanced amount have already been deposited with the Reference Court. Let, copy of the judgment of the Reference Court be placed on record. An affidavit be also filed on behalf of the petitioner whether any Regular First Appeal has been filed against the Award or not, since the locus standi is questionable, in view the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & others, AIR 2020 SC 1496 that once a landowner is seeking enhancement of compensation, he is stopped from raising challenge to the acquisition proceedings. Adjourned to 25.09.2024. September 09, 2024” In pursuance of the same, the petitioner has filed an affidavit showing that no reference has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that not only the petitioner has filed reference, she has further filed RFA-1066-2013 and after the decision in the said RFA, even the SLP(Civil) bearing diary no(s).20766/2017 titled as “Shingara Singh & others vs. The State of Haryana & others” has been filed by the petitioner in which the petitioner is petitioner no.8. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that thus, the affidavit filed by the petitioner is false. DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:46 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-22524-2024 3 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the same, he seeks to withdraw the present petition. 5. Ordered accordingly. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE July 07, 2026. Davinder Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.07 17:46 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment