Dharam Singh And ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.7.2015 Dharam Singh and others ....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1.
By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 23.3.1981 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated dated 27.3.1981 (Annexure P-2) under Section 6 of the Act and the award dated 19.7.1986 (Annexure P-3) qua their land, 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 petitioners are owners in possession of the land which was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 23.3.1981 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 27.3.1981 (Annexure P-2) under Section 6 of the Act, acquired the land for construction of drain No.8 to feed Bhindawas Bird
-2Century. The award was passed on 19.7.1986 (Annexure P-3). The petitioners have submitted a representation dated 12.3.2014 (Annexure P-7) to respondents No.2 to 4 for release of their land from acquisition, but to no effect. Thereafter, they served a legal notice dated 11.2.2015 (Annexure P-8) upon respondents No.2 to 4, but no response has been received till date. They are still in physical possession of the land in dispute and are ready to deposit back the amount of compensation received by them along with interest. According to the petitioners, 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 petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in physical possession of the land in dispute and are ready to deposit back the amount compensation received by them 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 comprehensive demand notice claiming the relief as claimed in respect of lapse of notifications has been filed with the respondents, liberty be granted to the petitioners 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 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
-3the 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 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. 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 23, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE