Satpal @ Satyapal & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.25219 of 2014 Date of Decision: April 08, 2015 Satpal @ Satyapal and others .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

Present:Mr.M.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. -.-

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioners are residents of Kashmiri Colony, Bahadurgarh, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar. Their grievance is against the notifications dated 28.06.2004 and 27.06.2005, issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). One of the plea taken by them in the instant writ petition is that the impugned acquisition has 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'). The case of the petitioners is that they are still in physical possession of the acquired land and no compensation has been paid to them. Two decisions of this Court in Girdhari Lal and others versus Union of India and others, CWP No.17412 of 2004, decided on 21.04.2014 and Ashok Kumar and others MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.04.21 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.25219 of 2014 [2] versus State of Haryana and others, (CWP No.9472 of 2007, decided on 25.04.2014, are referred to in order to point out that acquisition in the entire area has been subject matter of litigation before one or the other forums, due to which the petitioners were never dispossessed from the acquired land. On this premise, it is urged that Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act is fully attracted.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the fact that they have raised mixed questions of law and facts which can be effectively determined even by the authorities after verification of the fact situation at the spot, we do not deem it necessary to express any opinion on merits, rather dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to treat this petition as representation on behalf of the petitioners with further liberty to them to supplement the same, if need be and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order in accordance with law especially with reference to Section 24 (2) of 2013 Act, as early as possible but not later than four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE April 08, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.04.21 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh