Ram Murti v. State Of Haryana And Others

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CWP-5514-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.12.2023.

Ram Murti ....Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Haryana & Ors.

....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:

Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G. Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG Haryana for respondents. -.- SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (Oral) 1.

The petitioner herein seeks quashing of notification No.LAC(P)/NTLA-2001/5406, dated 22.08.2001, as issued, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894") (Annexure P-3) as well as notification bearing No. LAC(P)/NTLA-2001/1167 dated 25.01.2002 (Annexure P-4), as issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894. The above is rested on the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2013'). 2.

For the reasons to be assigned, hereinafter, the writ claims are liable to be dismissed:-

2i) that this Court does not deem it fit and appropriate to declare the launched acquisition proceedings to becomes lapsed by invoking the mandate as engrafted in Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.

ii) the reasons for making the above conclusion, is based, on the evident fact, that the Acquiring Authority has adduced, before this Court thus cogent discharging material, in satisfaction of the duo, of the parameters, enshrined in a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "Indore Development Authority Versus Manoharlal and Others'[2020(4) R.C.R (Civil) 668, inasmuch as, qua (a) Physical possession of acquired lands becoming delivered to the Beneficiary Department concerned, through Rapat No. 162, dated 19.11.2003;

(b) the assessed compensation amount becoming released to the petitioners, as per award statement, thus, on 19.11.2003; (c) the adduction of the above discharging evidence, whereby satisfaction is meted to the twin parameters (supra), as enshrined, in the verdict supra, as made by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, thus, constrains this Court to conclude that resultantly, the petitioners are not entitled to become endowed with the benefit of Section 24(2) of the Act

3of 2013. Conspicuously, when events (supra) evidently occurred before the coming into force of the Act of 2013. 3.

In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is dismissed. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE December 14, 2023 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) tripti JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No