← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/3502/2015disposed of

Attam Parkash And ORS v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2015-07-20Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh3 pages

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.7.2015 Attam Parkash and others ....Petitioners.

Versus

The State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

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

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.

PRESENT: Mr. Rohan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for respondent No.3.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11.4.2014 (Annexure P-6), notifications dated 2.1.2002 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 24.12.2002 (Annexure P-3) under Section 6 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, 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.

Government of Haryana vide notification dated 2.1.2002 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification

-2dated 24.12.2002 (Annexure P-3) under Section 6 of the Act, acquired the land of various villages including the land of the petitioners for the development of Sectors 9 Part, 32 and 33 Part, Karnal as residential and commercial area. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The petitioners were issued notices on 25.9.2002 by respondent No.3 for appearance before him on 4.10.2002 at 10.00 AM. The petitioners have raised 'A' class construction on the land in question prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, the land of some of the landowners has been released from acquisition. The petitioners filed CWP No. 23864 of 2013 for release of their shops which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.10.

2013 (Annexure P-5) with a direction to consider their claim but their claim was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 11.4.2014 (Annexure P-6). The award was passed on 21.12.2004. They are still in physical possession of the land in question. No compensation has been paid to them. According to the petitioners, 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 petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in physical possession of the land in dispute and compensation has not been paid to them. 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 petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the

-3grievance 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 petitioners 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 the petitioners 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 them within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioners shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate their 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.