Chitrawati & ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 25623 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 27.11.2017 Chitrawati and others .. Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .. Respondents Coram:

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

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Manoj Dhankhar, Assistant 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 (for short, 'the 2013 Act'), the acquisition has lapsed, as the petitioners have neither been paid compensation for the acquired land nor possession thereof has been taken from them. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') were issued on 9.8.2002 and 8.8.2003, respectively. Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') on 5.8.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither compensation for the acquired land has been paid to the petitioners nor possession thereof has been taken from them. It was submitted that husband

-2of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 5 had purchased a small plot measuring 5 marlas much before the acquisition. It was submitted that adjoining area on both sides of the plot, where the houses were constructed, was released from acquisition. It was further submitted that though the area has been developed and plots carved out thereon have been sold, however, the plot in question has not been sold till date. The petitioners are still in physical possession of the plot.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that the compensation for the acquired land has not been paid to the petitioners. It was not disputed that the adjoining area was released from acquisition. He further did not dispute the fact that the plots on the acquired land have been sold, but the plot in question has not been sold and the petitioners are still in physical possession of the plot. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act provides that acquisition of land would lapse in cases where award had been announced by the Collector five years prior to the enactment of the 2013 Act i.e. 1.1.2014, in case either the compensation for the acquired land has not been paid or the possession thereof has not been taken.

In the case in hand, it is admitted position on record that compensation for the acquired land has not been paid to the petitioners. As regards possession of the land is concerned, the submission of the petitioners is that they are still in physical possession of the plot, has not been disputed.

-3For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, ingredients as contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having been complied with, the acquisition of land in question has lapsed.

The writ petition is allowed.

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Gurvinder Singh Gill) Judge 27.11.2017 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No