Suresh Kumar & ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

CWP No. 1251 of 2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1251 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 9.3.2017 Suresh Kumar and others .. Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu

Present:

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal, J.

The petitioners have challenged the acquisition of land while placing reliance on the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act'), claiming that the possession of the land having not been taken, the acquisition has lapsed. In the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') was issued on 2.3.1993. It was followed by notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act, issued on 1.3.1994. The petitioners had purchased the land vide registered sale deed dated 31.1.1994.

The issue as to locus of a person who purchases land after acquisition thereof, has been gone into by this court in CWP No. 2304 of 2014-M/s National Packing Industries v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 8.8.2014; CWP No. 20840 of 2014-Rajiv Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 18.8.2015 and Ramesh Devi v. State of Sharmila Devi 2017.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No. 1251 of 2017 -2Haryana and others, 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 38 and the same was answered in negative. Special Leave Petition CC No (c). 12535 of 2015-Suresh Garg and another v. State of Haryana and others, against the judgment in M/s National Packing Industries' case (supra) has also been dismissed. Still learned counsel for the petitioners sought to re-argue the matter stating that the same is required to be considered from a different angle, however, we do not find any reason to re-examine the issue, once it had already been considered in three different cases earlier.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgments, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Harinder Singh Sidhu) Judge 9.3.2017 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Sharmila Devi 2017.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document