High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/16032/2020dismissed

Jagram Saini And ANR v. State Of Haryana And Others

2020-10-01Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary,Mrs. Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.16032 of 2020 Date of decision: 01.10.2020 (Heard through Video Conferencing) Jagram Saini and another ..Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ..Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana for the respondents.

*** Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition is for release of land in view of policy dated 14.09.2018.

Advance copy of the petition was given to learned State counsel.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned State counsel submits that possession of the land in dispute was taken on 20.01.2006 and compensation has also been paid on 31.07.2008. The issue pertaining to Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has already been decided by Hon'ble the Apex Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the representation of the petitioners is still pending and direction be issued to the respondent-authorities to take action on the pending representation.

NEETU RANI 2020.10.05 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC

CWP No.16032 of 2020 -2- .....

In view of the submission made by learned State counsel and also the fact that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by Hon'ble the Apex Court, no further direction is required to be issued even for taking decision on the representation. However, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

It is made clear that in some of the cases, liberty has been granted, while accepting the request of withdrawal of the main petition, to approach the authorities but in some of the cases, such liberty has not been given. Same issue has been decided in CM No.9051-CWP of 2020 in CWP No.22241 of 2016 titled as Raghubir Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others vide order of even date wherein it has been held that no such liberty is required to be given.

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 01.10.2020 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) neetu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETU RANI 2020.10.05 12:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document PHHC