Jagdish & ORS v. Sudhir Rajpal & ORS

Manoj Kumar 2017.03.14 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document COCP No.2800 of 2016 (O&M) #1#

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.2800 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Order: 09.3.2017 Jagdish and Ors.

....Petitioners

Versus

Sudhir Rajpal and Ors.

....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

Present:

Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mrs. Shubhra Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana.

JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Through this contempt petition, the petitioners, whose land situated within the Municipal limits of Bawal, District Rewari was acquired for extension of Industrial Growth Centre, Bawal, to be planned as an integrated complex for Industrial recreational and other public utilities, have alleged wilful disobedience of the order dated 20.4.2015 passed by this Court in CWP No.7135 of 2015 directing as under:

" After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before the appropriate authority. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioners within a period of two months from today, the same shall be

COCP No.2800 of 2016 (O&M) #2# decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to them within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioners shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate their claim before the concerned authority. Till the matter is decided by the said authority, status quo shall be maintained by the parties."

Upon notice, short reply by way of affidavit dated 30.1.2017 of Sudhir Rajpal, IAS, Managing Director, HSIIDC has been filed averring that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, on the basis of the recommendations of the committee formed by the State Government headed by MD/HSIIDC as well as the approval of the State Government, speaking orders have now been passed on 22.12.2016 (Annexure-I) to the following effect therby rendering the present petition as infructuous: "no relief can be granted to the subject petitioner u/s 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and hence, the request for release of land in terms of Section 24 (2) is hereby rejected."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not disputed to the aforesaid fact.

In view of the above, present petition is dismissed as having become infructuous and the rule is discharged. March 09, 2017 (JASWANT SINGH) manoj JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No