Swami Shardanand Saraswati v. State Of Haryana And ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.5.2015 Swami Shardanand Saraswati Chela Late Sh. Swami Bhajnanand Saraswati ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

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

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.

PRESENT: Mr. Mohan Lal Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 11.5.1990 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 8.5.1991 (Annexure P-6) under Section 6 of the Act and the award dated 5.5.1993 (Annexure P-7) qua the land of the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner is owner in possession of the total land measuring 1600 square yards situated in village Ankhir, Tehil and District Faridabad. Respondent No.3 issued a notification dated 11.5.1990 (Annexure P-5) under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated

-28.5.1991 (Annexure P-6) under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of land of the petitioner for the development and utilization of land as residential and commercial, Sector 21-D, Faridabad. The award was passed on 5.5.1993 (Annexure P-7). He is still in physical possession of the land in question. No compensation has been paid to him. According to the petitioner, the acquisition proceedings have 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"). Hence, the present writ petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in physical possession of the land in dispute and compensation has not been paid to him. 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 parties, 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 directed that in the event of a representation being filed by

-3the 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 May 13, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE