Jagpal And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

CWP No. 23220 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.13458-CWP of 2017 in/and CWP No. 23220 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.9.2017 Jagpal and others .. Petitioners versus The State of Haryana and others .. Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill

Present:

Mr. Lokesh Vohra, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Rajesh Bindal, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition claiming that in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition has lapsed, as the petitioners have neither been paid compensation for the acquired land nor possession of the land has been taken from them. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 2.8.1989 and 1.8.1990, respectively. Learned counsel for the State pointed out that the petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No.23082 of 2014-- Badle and others vs. State of Haryana and others, which was decided on 23.4.2015 directing the authorities to decide the representation filed by the petitioners. Till such time representation is decided, status quo was directed to be maintained. He further submitted that the representation has still not been Sharmila Devi 2017.10.03 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No. 23220 of 2016 -2decided even as per the case set up by the petitioners in the present petition. Considering the fact that earlier the petitioners had filed the writ petition claiming the same relief, which was disposed of directing the authorities to decide the representation filed by the petitioners, which admittedly is still pending, we do not find any reason to entertain the present writ petition for the same relief till such time the representation filed by the petitioners is decided. The petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail of their remedy, in case the representation is decided against them.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Gurvinder Singh Gill) Judge 25.9.2017 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Sharmila Devi 2017.10.03 10:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document