High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25035/2015dismissed

Suresh & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

2016-07-08Registrar-Judicial,Ms. Justice Navita Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No.25035 of 2015.

Date of Decision: July 08, 2016 Suresh and others ......Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH.

*** Present: Ms.Sunita Punia, Advocate, for Mr.Rajiv Kataria, 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 have questioned the acquisition of their land which took place in the year 1989, on the strength of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

When the matter came up for hearing on 01.12.2015, the following order was passed by this Court:- "....Admittedly, the compensation of the land stands disbursed to the petitioners. However, the petitioners claim to be in possession of the land. As per the Jamabandi on record, it was a vacant agriculture land at the time when the award was announced. The possession of vacant agriculture land would vest with the State when the Rapat Roznamcha MOHINDER KUMAR 2016.07.13 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No.25035 of 2015 [2] is entered in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Balwant Narayan Bhadge vs. M.D.Bhagwat, (1976) 1 SCC 700.

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks some time to address arguments.

List on 27.01.2016."

Thereafter, the case has been adjourned time and again on the request made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Today also, similar request has been made.

In our considered view, the petitioners will have to answer the above-stated question alongwith supporting documents/entries in the revenue record. We thus dismiss this writ petition but with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action with comprehensive averments alongwith supporting documents. Ordered accordingly.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE July 08, 2016 [DARSHAN SINGH] mohinder JUDGE MOHINDER KUMAR 2016.07.13 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh