Delhi Fransalian Society v. State Of Haryana & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 9.7.2015 Delhi Fransalian Society, New Delhi ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.

PRESENT: Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Aakanksha Sawhney, Advocate for respondent No.3. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 7.2.2006 (Annexure P-2) under Section 6 of the Act and the award dated 2.3.2006 (Annexure P-3) qua the land of the petitioner measuring 37 kanal 12 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Badhkhalsa, Tehsil and District Sonepat, 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"). Further a writ of mandamus has been sought

-2directing the respondents to decide the legal notice dated 20.8.2014 (Annexure P-5) sent to respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order. 2.

The petitioner purchased the land measuring 37 kanal 12 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Badhkhalsa, Tehsil and District Sonepat vide registered sale deed dated 20.9.2003. Government of Haryana vide notification dated 17.11.2005 (Annexure P1) issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 7.2.2006 (Annexure P-2) under Section 6 of the Act, acquired the land of the petitioner for the public purpose, namely, residential, commercial and institutional for Sectors 65, 66, 67 and 68, Sonepat. The award was passed on 2.3.2006 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner is still in physical possession of the land in question. No compensation has been paid to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, 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 petitioner submitted that the petitioner is still in physical possession of the land in question and compensation has not been paid to it. 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 petitioner 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

-3law.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate its claim before the concerned authority. 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 9, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE