High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/5113/2016disposed of

Jagdev Singh & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ORS

2017-10-09Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain,Mrs. Justice Archana Puri2 pages

CWP No.5113 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5113 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision : 9.10.2017 Jagdev Singh 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. B.K. Bagri, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 4. Mr. Lokesh Jain, Advocate for Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging acquisition of land, where notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued on 1.4.2010 and 4.4.2011, respectively. It is claimed that the petitioners are the co-owners of land to the extent of 2 marlas of land having total area of 3 kanals 9 marlas. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not pressing their claim challenging the acquisition of land, however, keeping in view the order passed by this Court in CWP No.28567 of 2013 titled as Mahinder Singh and others vs. Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Industries and Commerce Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, decided on 10.8.2015, directions be issued for allotment of plots. The present petition may be disposed of in the same terms.

Sharmila Devi 2017.11.07 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.5113 of 2016 -2Learned counsel for HSIIDC does not dispute the aforesaid factual position and submitted that in Kewat No.16//14 (3 kanals 9 marlas), there were number of co-sharers. The petitioners admittedly owned only 2 marlas of land therein. Only on the small portion of land construction had been raised. The authority will consider case of the petitioners in terms of the stand taken by it in the affidavit filed earlier and the order passed by this Court in Mahinder Singh's (supra).

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in Mahinder Singh's (supra).

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Gurvinder Singh Gill) Judge 9.10.2017 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Sharmila Devi 2017.11.07 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document