Ranjit Singh & ORS v. State Of Haryana
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 7.8.2015 Ranjit 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: Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate for the petitioners. 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 mandamus for declaring the notifications dated 17.4.2002 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 10.4.2003 (Annexure P-4) under Section 6 of the Act and the award dated 25.6.2004 (Annexure P-5), 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.
Government of Haryana issued a notification dated 17.4.2002 (Annexure P-3) under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 10.4.2003 (Annexure P-4) under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of land including the land of the petitioners for the public
-2purpose for residential, commercial and institutional for development of sectors 1 (Part), 10-11 (Part), 12 and 13, Bahadurgarh. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The award was passed on 25.6.2004 (Annexure P-5). They are still in physical possession of the land in question. However, some of the petitioners have received the amount of compensation and are ready to deposit the same 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 inadvertently the date of award mentioned in para 7 of the writ petition is 25.3.2008 whereas actually the award was passed on 25.6.2004, copy of which has been appended along with the writ petition as Annexure P5. It was further submitted that the petitioners are in physical possession of the land in dispute. Some of the petitioners have received the amount of compensation and are ready to deposit the same 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 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
-3the 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 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 August 7, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE