Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Shiv Sharma vs Union Of India And Others on 5 February, 2013
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, G.S. Sandhawalia
CWP No. 2433 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 2433 of 2013
Date of Decision: 5.2.2013
Jai Shiv Sharma
....Petitioner.
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA.
PRESENT: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator for adjudicating the claim of the petitioner regarding compensation for the land acquired in the year 1972.
2. The petitioner was co-owner of 43 bighas of land comprised in khasra No. 2612 situated in the revenue estate of Bathinda and the said land was acquired on 9.10.1972. It is the case of the petitioner that at the time of acquisition of land, no agreement was signed by them. Despite repeated requests, the authorities have not appointed an Arbitrator to assess their claim to get compensation.
3. The petitioner sent a legal notice dated 22.5.2002 (Annexure CWP No. 2433 of 2013 -2- P-1) to the respondents upon which process was issued by the authorities to know their entitlement and as to whether any agreement was signed by them or not at the time of acquisition of land. Reference has been made to letters dated 20.2.2003 (Annexure P-2), dated 22.3.2003 (Annexure P-
3), dated 23.9.2003 (Annexure P-4) and dated 11.8.2004 (Annexure P-5). It is argued that despite many efforts made by the petitioner, no action has been taken on the legal notice (Annexure P-1).
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 to decide the legal notice served by the petitioner in accordance with law by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that in case any claim raised is tenable under law, the requisite relief be granted to the petitioner.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
February 5, 2013 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
gbs JUDGE