Daya Nand v. State Of Haryana & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 8.5.2015 Daya Nand ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

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

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.

PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 31.12.2002 (Annexure P-4) under Section 6 of the Act and the award dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-5) vide which his land was acquired for the development and utilization of the land as residential/transport and communication situated in the revenue estat eof village Bohar, Para, Tehsil and District Rohtak, Sectors 4 and 5. Further, directions have been sought to release the land of the petitioner from the acquisition as the acquisition proceedings have lapsed 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")

-22.

The petitioner is owner in possession of plot No. 34 (Part), 35 and 36 measuring 205 square yards situated in village Para, Tehsil and District Rohtak. Government of Haryana vide notification dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 31.12.2002 (Annexure P-4) under Section 6 of the Act, acquired the land in question for the development and utilization of the land as residential/transport and communication situated in the revenue estate of village Bohar, Para, Tehsil and District Rohtak, Sectors 4 and 5. The petitioner filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The award was passed on 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner is still in physical possession of the land in dispute. No compensation has been paid to him. According to the petitioner, 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 petitioner submitted that the petitioner is still in physical possession of the land in dispute and compensation has not been paid to him. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner, perusing the

-3present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 him within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate his 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 8, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE