Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gyasi Ram And Others vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 15 January, 2014
Bench: Surya Kant, Amol Rattan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.506 of 2014
Date of Decision: January 15, 2014
Gyasi Ram and others .....Petitioners
versus
The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH.
Present : Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitiones.
Ms.Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.
-.-
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)
Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 & 2 only at this stage.
On our asking, Ms.Palika Monga, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on their behalf.
Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State Counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non- prosecution.
In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, neither respondent No.3 is required to be served nor any counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 & 2 is needed at this stage.
Kumar Mohinder 2014.01.30 12:10 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.506 of 2014 [2] The petitioners impugn the notifications dated 11.02.2011 (Annexure P-5) and 10.02.2012 (Annexure P-9) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively, to the extent of acquisition of their land comprising residential house, situated within the revenue estate of Village Tauru, District Mewat, fully described in para No.3 of the writ petition. The aforesaid acquisition has been made for the development of residential Sectors 7, 8 and 11 at Mewat.
Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court dated 22.10.2013 passed in CWP No.23082 of 2013 (Chhatar Singh and others versus The State of Haryana and others) (Annexure P-13).
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the averments made in the writ petition which are supported with some of the documents, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.1 & 2 to consider the afore-mentioned claim of the petitioners in accordance with law and the Government policy dated 26.10.2007 read with the observations made in the above cited order passed in Chhatar Singh and others's case (supra).
Till the speaking order is passed, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo.
Dasti.
[SURYA KANT]
JUDGE
January 15, 2014 [AMOL RATTAN SINGH]
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2014.01.30 12:10
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh