Zonex Estates Pvt Ltd & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 9.7.2015 Zonex Estates Private Limited, New Delhi 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: Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. J.K. Khetarpal, Advocate for Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for respondent No.3. 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 certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 17.9.2004 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 27.10.2004 (Annexure P-3) under Section 6 of the Act and the award dated 9.3.2006 (Annexure P-4) qua their land, having lapsed, 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.

The petitioners are owners in possession of the land

-2measuring 96 kanal 18 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Lakhnoula. Government of Haryana issued a notification dated 17.9.2004 (Annexure P-2) under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 27.10.2004 (Annexure P-3) under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of land including the land of the petitioners. The petitioners along with one previous owner filed CWP No. 3554 of 2006 for quashing the said notifications. The award was passed on 9.3.2006 (Annexure P-4). The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.4.2009 (Annexure P-5). Against the said order, Annexure P-5, the petitioners filed LPA No. 114 of 2010 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure P-6) and the SLP No. 32783 of 2010 filed against thereto was also dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 13.

12.2010 (Annexure P-7). State also challenged the order dated 16.4.2009 (Annexure P-5) by way of LPA No. 504 of 2010 and this Court vide order dated 28.1.2011 (Annexure P-9) affirmed the quashing of the said notifications to the extent of invocation of urgency provision under Section 17 of the Act. In pursuance thereto, respondent No.1 issued notices dated 3.8.2011 (Annexure P-10) to the landowners inviting their objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners filed CWP No. 22351 of 2011 and this Court vide order dated 12.12.2011 (Annexure P-11) dismissed the said writ petition. They took the matter in the Supreme Court against the said order, Annexure P-11, by filing SLP No. 16921 of 2012 which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.9.2012 (Annexure P-11A). They are still in physical possession of the land in question.

No compensation has been paid to them.

-3view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in physical possession of the land in dispute and compensation has not been paid to them. 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 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 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

-4that 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