Parveen Jain v. State Of Haryana & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 6.7.2015 Smt. Parveen Jain ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

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

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.

PRESENT: Mr. M.L. 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 certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 17.4.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 10.4.2003 under Section 6 of the Act and the awards dated 25.6.2004 and 31.1.2005 (Annexure P-3) whereby the land of the petitioner situated in village Bahadurgarh, Tehsil and District Jhajjar. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought declaring acquisition proceedings as lapsed 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"). 2.

The petitioner is owner in possession of the land situated within the revenue estate of village Bahadurgarh which she purchased

-2vide sale deed dated 16.1.1996 (Annexure P-1) and mutation was also recorded in her name. Government of Haryana vide notification dated 17.4.2002 issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 10.4.2013) under Section 6 of the Act, acquired the land of the petitioner. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The awards were passed on 25.6.2004 and 31.1.2005 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner is still in physical possession of the land in question and no compensation has been paid to her. 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 compensation has not been paid to her. 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

-3authority. 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 be 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 her 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 July 6, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE