Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 11 July, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
CWP No. 15617 of 2012. ::-1-::
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 15617 of 2012. [O&M]
Date of Decision:11th July, 2013.
Jitender & Anr. Petitioners through
Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through
Mr. S.S.Patter, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate, for HUDA CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
1. Whether Reporters of 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 15617, 15650, 15660, 15673, 15674, 15854, 15857, 15923, 16413, 20633, 21933, 21982, 21997, 22045 of 2012 and 759 of 2013 as in all the writ petitions challenge is laid to the acquisition of land vide notifications dated 07.07.2011 and 06.07.2012 issued under Sections 4 and 6 respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 whereby the land of the petitioners has been acquired for the development of Sector 8, Jhajjar.
[2]. The record reveals that several opportunities have been granted to the respondents to file their reply/affidavit but the same has not been submitted so far. Keeping in view the nature of relief sought in these writ petitions and the fact that meanwhile re-survey is said to have been conducted by the concerned Authorities, we do not Gupta Dinesh 2013.07.18 11:07 I am the author of this document Hihg Court Chandigarh CWP No. 15617 of 2012. ::-2-::
deem it necessary to grant more opportunity to the respondents for the above stated purpose as the matter can be disposed of otherwise.
[3]. The principal contention of the petitioners is that the land, acquisition whereof is under challenge in these writ petitions, is a thickly populated area where they have constructed their residential houses/ ancillary properties. In order to make out a case of release of the constructed properties in terms of the Government policy dated 26.10.2007 [P-3], the petitioners have placed on record photographs depicting their respective constructions. There are a few petitioners who have pointed out that though the plots owned by them are still vacant, however, the same are surrounded by constructed houses and/or are located in a thickly populated area and no public purpose can be achieved by acquiring the same. Reference is also made to the fresh survey said to have been conducted by the District Administration/HUDA on the basis of which they are said to have taken a decision to release certain properties in Sectors 7, 8, 9A and 10 of Urban Estate, Jhajjar.
[4]. Since the precise case of the petitioners before us is that [i] some of them have constructed their residential houses/properties; [ii] their vacant plots can not be utilized for regulated development of any Urban Sector; [iii] their residential houses/plots are located in a thickly populated area; [iv] a part of the subject land is being utilized for various public utilities like schools/other Institutions and [v] since the above stated factual averments made by the petitioners have not Gupta Dinesh 2013.07.18 11:07 I am the author of this document Hihg Court Chandigarh CWP No. 15617 of 2012. ::-3-::
been controverted by the respondents so far, coupled with the fact that there exists Government's policy to release the acquired properties constructed before issuance of notification under Section
4 or wherever it is not found feasible to utilize the same for public purpose, we dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh survey of the land in question after notice to the petitioners so as to facilitate the identity of their properties. The re-survey shall be conducted essentially to find out whether the constructed properties or the vacant plots of the petitioners can be released without affecting the development plan of Sector 8, Jhajjar. If the authorities find that the properties of the petitioners can be released without any detrimental effect to the public purpose and/or such release falls within the four-corners of their policy, necessary orders to this effect shall be passed by them. Let this exercise be undertaken as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.
[5]. Till appropriate decision is taken, the parties shall maintain status-quo.
[6]. Disposed of. Dasti.
( SURYA KANT )
JUDGE
July 11, 2013. ( SURINDER GUPTA )
dinesh JUDGE
Gupta Dinesh
2013.07.18 11:07
I am the author of this
document
Hihg Court Chandigarh