Satya Rishi Pal And Others v. State Of Haryana And ORS

-1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 30, 2018 Satya Rishi Pal and others .....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.Lalit Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ankur Mittal, Addl.A.G.Haryana with Mr.Manoj Dhankhar and Mr.Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

The petitioners seek a declaration that acquisition of their land measuring 05K-13M (out of which 240 sq.yards have already been released vide memo No.1293 dated 09.05.1994) comprising Khewat No.1176, Khata No.1528, Rect.No.98, Killa No.17(1-3), 24/1(3-17), 27(0-9), 28(0-4) situated within the revenue estate of village Jharsa, Tehsil & District Gurgaon, carried out vide Notifications dated 22.03.1990 and 19.03.1991 issued under Sections 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity,'the 1894 Act') respectively, followed by the Award dated 16.03.1993 has lapsed under section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

-2Resettlement Act, 2013 (for brevity,'the 2013 Act'). [2] Case of the petitioners is that regardless of the fact that the Award was passed on 16.03.1993, possession of the acquired property remained with them where several types of constructions including a Dharamshala, pyao (water hut), a Hodi (water tank) etc. have been raised. These constructions were raised much prior to issuance of Section 4 Notification. Similarly, the compensation amount for the acquired property was neither paid to the petitioners nor the same has been deposited with the Reference Court in accordance with Section 31 of the 1894 Act. [3] The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Gurugram, has filed the reply-cum-affidavit dated 25.01.2018, which is taken on record. It is candidly acknowledged that the petitioners have not received the compensation amount.

Physical possession of the acquired property is also with the petitioners without any intervention by a Court of law which is also an admitted fact. Keeping this in view where both the ingredients of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act stand satisfied, read with the detailed reasons assigned by this Court in Ghasitu Ram vs State of Haryana and others 2017(3) RCR (Civil) 524 and Satnam Singh and another vs State of Haryana and others 2017(3) RCR (Civil) 579, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned acquisition qua land of the petitioners is declared to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.

-3period. In case no such process is initiated, the petitioners shall be obligated to utilise the land strictly in accordance with the development/zoning plan of the area. They shall also be liable to pay the development charges in accordance with law.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE January 30, 2018 ( SHEKHER DHAWAN ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No