IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 CWP-13290-2005(O&M) Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 Jagjeet Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present:- Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hakikat Singh Grewal, Advocate and Mr. Uday Vij, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with Mr. Pradeep Chahra, Sr. DAG, Haryana and Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. ***** DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) Through the instant petition the petitioner seeks quashing of notifications dated 13.07.2004 (Annexure P-1) and 11.07.2005 (Annexure P-2) issued by the State under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking therein to acquire the petitioner’s land with a further prayer for issuance of directions to the respondents not to demolish the petitioner’s factory premises. 2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered in the petitioner’s favour by a recent judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.04.2025 in CWP- 13027-2005-Umesh Kumar Madhok Vs. State of Haryana and others. 3. After going through the record of the present case and the judgment in Umesh Kumar Madhok’s case (supra), we find that in both the matters, the facts and the issues raised are the same, which is also very fairly acknowledged by the learned State counsel. PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.15 22:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-13290-2005(O&M) -2- 4. In the light of above, the present petition is also allowed in the same terms as in Umesh Kumar Madhok’s case (supra). 5. No costs. 6. All pending applications also stand disposed of. [DEEPAK SIBAL] JUDGE [LAPITA BANERJI] 11.09.2025 JUDGE Prince Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No PRINCE SAINI 2025.09.15 22:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document