Virender And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.7.2015 Virender 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. N.D. Achint, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this 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 27.11.2003 (Annexure P-6) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") and dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-7) under Section 6 of the Act and award dated 22.11.2006 qua their land situated at village Fazilpur Jharsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. 2.

Government of Haryana vide notification dated 27.11.2003 (Annexure P-6) issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 24.11.2004 (Annexure P-7) under Section 6 of the Act acquired 141.88 acres of land including the land of the petitioners. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. Respondents No.1 to 3

-2released the constructed portions adjoining to village abadi. The awards were passed on 10.9.2007 and 23.11.2006. The petitioners filed CWP No. 21272 of 2012 challenging the said notifications and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.2.2013 (Annexure P-12) with liberty to approach the respondents for release of their land by filing a detailed representation and on receipt of said representation, the State was to take expeditious decision by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties in accordance with law. In pursuance thereto, the representation of the petitioners was not considered by respondents No.1 to 3. They are still in physical possession of the land in question. No compensation has been paid to them. 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 compensation has not been paid to them. 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 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 parties, perusing the

-3present 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 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 16, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE