High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/23992/2017disposed of

Jug Lal & Another v. State Of Haryana And Others

2017-10-24Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih2 pages

CWP-23992-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-23992-2017 Date of Decision: October 24, 2017 Jug Lal and another

...Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

Present:

Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Sudip Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

ARUN PALLI, J. (ORAL) Notice of motion.

Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, AAG, Haryana, and Mr. Sudip Mahajan, Advocate, present in the Court, accept notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and respondent Nos. 2 to 5, respectively. Copies furnished.

For the nature of order I propose to pass in the matter, no formal written statements or counter affidavits of the respondents are indeed necessary, at this stage. Thus, with the consent of the parties, the petition is being finally disposed of.

Vide this petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of Prashant Kapoor 2017.10.25 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CWP-23992-2017 India, a writ in the nature of mandamus is prayed, for directing the respondents to issue an instrument of annuity to the petitioners owing to the acquisition of their holdings, in accordance with the RR Policy, dated 07.12.2007 (Annexure P-1) and all other benefits the petitioners are entitled to.

It is urged that for the last two years the Department has failed to deposit annuity/royalty in the accounts of the petitioners and despite the legal notice, dated 25.06.2017 (Annexure P-3), served upon the respondents in this regard, the matter has not made any tangible progress and result is insight either.

In response, learned State counsel submits that the claim of the petitioners as also the legal notice, dated 25.06.2017 (Annexure P-3), that the respondents are alleged to have been served with, shall be considered and decided within a period of six weeks from today and the appropriate orders in accordance with law, in this regard shall be passed. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in the above terms. Needless to assert that in the event the petitioners are not found entitled to the relief being claimed, the competent authority shall pass a comprehensive order assigning reasons in support thereof.

(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE October 24, 2017 Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES / NO Pkapoor Whether Reportable:

YES / NO Prashant Kapoor 2017.10.25 10:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document