Bed Singh v. State Of Haryana & ORS
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 24.5.2016 Bed Singh ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
1.
Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RAJ RAHUL GARG.
PRESENT: Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Mago, AAG, Haryana.
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 mandamus directing the respondents to release his land measuring 5 kanal 4 marlas out of 13 kanal 9 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Patti Musalnan Jattan, Tehsil and District Sonepat acquired vide notifications dated 12.7.2004 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 11.7.2005 under Section 6 of the Act and the award dated 9.7.2007 (Annexure P-2) from acquisition in view of Section 24(2) of the
-2Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "2013 Act").
2.
The land of the petitioner measuring 5 kanal 4 marlas out of 13 kanal 9 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Patti Musalnan Jattan, Tehsil and District Sonepat was acquired by the respondents vide notification dated 12.7.2004 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 11.7.2005 under Section 6 of the Act for the development and utilization of land as residential and commercial Sector 16 (Pocket) Sonepat, acquired the land including the land of the petitioner. The award was passed on 9.7.2007 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner is still in physical possession of the land in question. 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 question 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.
-34.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the present 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 the petitioner 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.