← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/27726/2019disposed of

Mehar Chand And ANR v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2021-11-08Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal2 pages

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh 1.

Civil Writ Petition No. 27726 of 2019 Mehar Chand and Another ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and Others ... Respondent(s) AND 2.

Civil Writ Petition No. 27779 of 2019 Mehar Chand and Another ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and Others ... Respondent(s) DATE OF DECISION: 08.11.2021.

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Rohit Mittal, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Samarth Sagar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent No.1 to 5.

Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate for the respondent No.6.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

By this order, two connected writ petitions i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 27726 and 27779 of 2019 shall stand disposed of. 2.

In essence, the petitioners make a grievance that the amount of annuity, payable under the policy of the State as compensation for acquisition of the land, has not been paid. The petitioners also pray that they DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2021.11.08 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Civil Writ Petition No. 27726 of 2019 And Civil Writ Petition No. 27779 of 2019 are entitled to the enhanced amount in view of the revised policy (Annexure P2).

3.

Mr. Pritam Singh Siani, Advocate, has entered appearance for the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") and states that the amount of annuity as per the annuity policy dated 07.12.2007 has been paid upto the year 2019. He submits that the remaining payment as per the policy of 2007 shall be made within a period of two months from today. 4.

The learned counsel representing the petitioners has fairly stated that the revised policy, which came into effect on 07.09.2010, is not applicable to the petitioners. The learned counsel representing the Corporation has stated that the landowners have already been paid the excess amount. If that be so, the Corporation shall be entitled to adjust the same. 5.

With the observations made above, both the writ petitions are disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge November 08, 2021 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2021.11.08 14:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document