ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed by two counsel, namely, Mr. Bijender Mehla and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sah, who are both enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi. On a query by the Court as to whether the said counsel is practicing in this Court, the counsel present has candidly admitted that he is practicing in the Delhi Courts and not in this Court.

2. Rule 3-A Chapter 6-B of Volume V of the Rules and Orders framed by this Court under Section 34 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 reads as under :

“3-A. (i) Unless the Court grants leave, an Advocate who is not on the roll of Advocates in the Punjab and Haryana High Court shall not be allowed to appear, act or plead in the Punjab and Haryana High Court as the case might be unless he/she files appointment along with an Advocate who is on such roll of Punjab and Haryana High Court.

(ii) The High Court shall prepare a roll of Advocates who ordinarily practice in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

(iii) The roll of Advocates shall bear in regard to each advocate entered, his full name, father’s name, passport size coloured photograph, enrollment number, date of enrollment, email I.D., complete postal address both of residence and office which shall be in Chandigarh or District Mohali or District Panchkula, as the case may be.

(iv) The rolls shall be prepared and revised periodically in the manner and under the authority as may be prescribed by the Chief Justice.

(v) The Advocates, desirous of practicing in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, are required to apply for inclusion of their names in the list of Roll of Advocates as per ‘proforma’ appended at the end of this Chapter, alongwith necessary requisites as prescribed by the High Court from time to time.

(vi) This Rule 3-A shall come into force after notification by the Chief Justice on completion of compilation of the roll of advocate.”

3. The above Rule 3-A mandates that the petition has to be filed alongwith an Advocate who is on the Roll of Advocates of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The petition as well as the Power of Attorney has been signed only by counsel who are admittedly enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi and are practicing in Delhi Courts.

4. In the writ petition filed, the following prayer has been made :

“A. PRAYER FOR SEEKING DECLARATION THAT ACQUISITION HAS LAPSED AND RESTORATION OF MUTATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER AND

B. FOR DECLARE THAT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT ACQUISITION OF THE PETITIONER' LAND HAVE LAPSED UNDER SECTION 24(2) OF THE 2013 ACT. AND

C. ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, MAY ALSO BE PASSED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

D. EXEMPT FROM FILING CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE ANNEXURES”

5. A perusal of the writ petition reveals that the only prayer made is to declare the acquisition of petitioner’s land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and for restoration of the mutation in his favour. Copies of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have not been appended with the writ petition. Even the details as regards dates of notifications under Sections 4, 6 and announcement of the award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have not been mentioned in the petition. On a query by the Court as to the details of the acquisition, the counsel states that he has no details of the acquisition.

6. It is strange as to how the present writ petition has been filed without specifying as to which acquisition proceedings are under challenge. The casual manner in which the writ petition has been filed is shocking to say the least. Without so much as mentioning the details of the notifications which are sought to be challenged, the petition has been filed seeking blanket orders.

7. In view of the above, t