Daya Chand And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 14.02.2017 Daya Chand and others ....Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: - Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

By way of instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 31.07.2006 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure P-5) under Section 6 of the Act and the award dated 22.07.2008 (Annexure P-7) having lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short "2013 Act").

2.

The petitioners were owners in possession of the land comprised in rectangle/khasra No.15//24/2/2, 24//4/2, 5/1/2, 7/1/1 to the extent of their respective shares situated in Village Chandawali, District Faridabad. Government of Haryana vide notification dated 31.07.2006 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 09.08.2007 (Annexure P-5) under Section 6 of the Act, acquired large chunk of land measuring 658 acres 7 kanal and 13 marla situated in the revenue estate of

-2Village Chandawali, District Faridabad for the development and utilization of area for IMT Faridabad by the HSIDC. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The award was passed on 22.07.2008 (Annexure P-7). The petitioners had raised constructions in the area about 1000 sq. yards much before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners are still residing in the said house/land. The Voter Cards/Aadhar Cards are also issued in the names of the petitioners as well as their family members at the above said houses of the petitioners. The petitioners got electric connection on the said houses. According to the petitioners, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act as they are still in physical possession of the land in question, though the compensation has been received by them. Hence, the present writ petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are still in physical possession of the land in question, however, they have received the compensation. 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. He, however, prayed that 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 petitioners, 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 the petitioners 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 claims 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 (RAMENDRA JAIN) February 14, 2017 JUDGE R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No