Sardar Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 2933-34 of 2015 and Date of Decision: 20.5.2015 Sardar Singh and others ....Petitioners.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

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

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.

PRESENT: Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

CM Nos. 2933-34 of 2015 are allowed as prayed for and written statement on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 is taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

2.

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 notifications dated 3.8.2006 (Annexure P-7) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 14.6.2007 (Annexure P-9) under Section 6 of the Act and 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

-2referred to as "2013 Act").

3.

Government of Haryana issued a notification dated 3.8.2006 (Annexure P-7) under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 14.6.2007 (Annexure P-9) under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of 177 acres of land including the land of the petitioners situated within the revenue estate of villages Saidpur and Kassar for setting up industrial and other public utilities etc. by Haryana State Infrastructure Development Corporation. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The award was passed on 14.2.2008. 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.

4.

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 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. 5.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

-3case, 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. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE May 20, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE