Rajbir v. State Of Haryana And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.12.2016 Rajbir ....Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN.

PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release his land 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 father of the petitioner was owner in possession of the area measuring 1000 square yards in village Mewla Maharajpur, District Faridabad as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04 (Annexure P-2). Government of Haryana vide notification dated 30.4.1986 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act") followed by notification dated 28.4.1987 under Section 6 of the Act, acquired the land including the land of the father of the petitioner for the development of

-2Sector 46, Faridabad as residential area. The award was passed on 28.12.1988 (Annexure P-1). The father of the petitioner died on 9.9.1999 as is discernible from the death certificate dated 6.10.1999 (Annexure P-3). As per the photograph, Annexure P-4, the petitioner has constructed the shops on the said area. The petitioner is still in physical possession of the land in dispute and is ready to deposit the amount of compensation along with interest received by his father. According to the petitioner, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are in physical possession of the land in dispute and is ready to deposit the amount of compensation along with interest received by his father. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, 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 petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before the appropriate authority. It is

-3directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioner 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 him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate his 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 that 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 December 22, 2016 (RAMENDRA JAIN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No