Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 21 August, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
****
CWP No.21223 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.08.2013
****
Baljit Singh & Anr. . . . . Petitioners
VS.
State of Haryana & Ors. . . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE
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?
****
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate;
Mr. Rahul Dev Gupta, Advocate;
Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate;
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate;
Mr. BS Bedi, Advocate
for the petitioners
Ms. Palika Monga, DAG Haryana
Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate and
Mr. Raghujeet S Madan, Advocate for HUDA
****
SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)
(1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.21223 & 21242 of 2012; 1071, 1194, 2206 & 5432 of 2013 as the point in issue involved is common. The petitioners in these writ petitions impugn the notifications dated 02.01.2002 and 24.12.2002 issued under Sections 4&6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, 'the Act'), respectively coupled with the speaking order dated 07.08.2012 passed in some of the cases by the Director General, Urban Estates and Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana in purported compliance of the order CWP No.21223 of 2012 -2- dated 09.09.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the bunch of earlier writ petitions where the above-mentioned notifications were under challenge.
(2). The short question raised in these writ petitions is that residential properties or the partly raised structures of the petitioners have been acquired by the respondents for the public purpose of 'construction of road'. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that since the alignment of the road has now been admittedly changed and there is no proposal to construct the subject road, their acquired properties/structures are no longer required for any public purpose and the same deserve to be released.
(3). We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as the officers/officials of the Department present in Court and have gone through the records.
(4). Since the public purpose for which the petitioners' properties were acquired no longer exists and the respondents have not come forward with any other definite public purpose to utilize the acquired properties, we allow the writ petitions to the extent that the impugned order dated 07.08.2012 is set aside and the respondents are directed to conduct fresh survey of the area and if it is found that the acquired property(ies) of the petitioner(s) is/are not intended to or cannot be utilized for any specified public purpose, let they consider the desirability of releasing all such properties, forthwith. In any case, where the petitioners have raised constructions/structures the same CWP No.21223 of 2012 -3- can be released along with open space for utilization/enjoyment without obstructing the public purpose, if any.
(5). The entire exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti.
(Surya Kant)
Kant)
Judge
21.08
21.08.
.08.2013 (Surinder Gupta)
Gupta)
vishal shonkar
Judge