Harpal Singh v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.5.2015 Harpal Singh ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.

PRESENT: Mr. Sonu Giri, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release his house in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "2013 Act") as the respondents have released the land of other persons in the same village Kanhai from the same award vide orders dated 18.12.2002 (Annexure P-4), dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure P-5) and dated 22.8.2012 (Annexure P-6). 2.

Government of Haryana vide notification dated 20.4.1990 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") followed by notification dated 18.4.1991 (Annexure P2) under Section 6 of the Act, acquired the land of the petitioner for the

-2development of residential, commercial, institutional area, recreational zone and open space in Sectors 44, 45 and 46, Gurgaon. The award was passed on 23.3.1993. The petitioner is still in physical possession of the land in question. He is ready to deposit the amount of compensation received by him along with interest. According to the petitioner, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 24

(2) of the 2013 Act. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is still in physical possession of the land in question and is ready to deposit the amount of compensation received by him along with interest. It was claimed that in such circumstances, in view of Section 24

(2) of the 2013 Act, the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act had lapsed. It was further submitted that since no demand notice claiming the relief as claimed in respect of lapse of notifications has been filed with the respondents, liberty be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition, however, direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 petitioner 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 petitioner within a period of two months from today, the same shall

-3be decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim before the concerned authority. It is, however, made clear that in case no such representation is filed within the stipulated period as noticed above, the interim order shall cease to operate, thereafter. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE May 27, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE