Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puneet Kumar And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 July, 2013
Bench: Surya Kant, Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.15231 of 2013
Date of Decision : July 18, 2013
Puneet Kumar and others .....Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.
Present : Mr.C.L.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.S.S.Patter, Sr.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.
On our asking, Mr.S.S.Patter, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Let three copies of the writ petition be supplied to State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution. 2] In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.
3] The petitioners are co-owners in the land comprising Khasra Nos.12//20/3, 26//15/2, 27//1, 10, 11, 20,21, 28//1, 10-/1, situated within the revenue estate of Mewla Mahrajpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad, out of which land measuring about 360 square yards comes to their share. The Kumar Mohinder 2013.07.31 11:44 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.15231 of 2013 [2] petitioners' grievance though is against acquisition of their land in entirety, none-the-less precise claim raised in the writ petition is that after actual utilization of the land for 100 feet wide road leading to Sector 31, Urban Estate, Faridabad, for which the acquisition took place, whatever land is now left un- utilized may be released as has been done in the case of similarly situated pre-acquisition land-owners. The petitioners rely upon several instances where the un-utilized land of various land owners under the same acquisition has been released. The above-stated claim has been raised by the petitioners in their representation dated 21.8.2012 (Annexure P-7) also.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought by the petitioners for the release of their un-utilized acquired land, we do not deem it necessary to express any opinion of merits, rather dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents to objectively consider the above-mentioned claim of the petitioners and for that purpose, treat this petition as a supplementary representation on their behalf and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Dasti.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
July 18, 2013 (SURINDER GUPTA)
Mohinder JUDGE
Kumar Mohinder
2013.07.31 11:44
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
Chandigarh