Ram Kumar & ORS v. State Of Haryana & ANR

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.5.2015 Ram Kumar and others ....Petitioners.

Versus

The State of Haryana and another

...Respondents.

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

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.

PRESENT: Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

By way of instant 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 21.12.2005 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P-2) under Section 6 of the Act, award dated 5.7.2007 (Annexure P-3) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua their land 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.

The petitioners are owners in possession of the land, as

-2detailed in para 3 of the writ petition, situated within the revenue estate of village Sersa, Tehsil and District Sonepat. Government of Haryana issued a notification dated 22.12.2005 (Annexure P-1) under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 29.12.2006 (Annexure P-2) under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of land including the land of the petitioners for public purpose, namely, for the development of industrial estates, Sectors 53 to 56, Sonepat. The award was passed on 5.7.2007 (Annexure P-3). The petitioners are still in physical possession of the land in question. They are ready to refund the amount of compensation received by their deceased father. 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 are ready to refund the amount of compensation received by their deceased father. 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.

4.

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