Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jai Narain And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 27 April, 2015
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Rekha Mittal
CWP No. 7875 of 2015 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 7875 of 2015
Date of Decision: 27.4.2015
Jai Narain and others
....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.
PRESENT: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 22.2.1993 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 4 f the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"), dated 21.2.1994 (Annexure P-3) under Section 6 of the Act and the award dated 20.2.1996 (Annexure P-4) as the acquisition proceedings qua the land in dispute have lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "2013 Act").
2. The petitioners are co-sharer and co-owners in possession of the land measuring 2 kanal 16 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Baroli, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. State of Haryana GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.05.06 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 7875 of 2015 -2- issued a notification dated 22.2.1993 (Annexure P-2) under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 21.12.1994 (Annexure P-3) under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of land of villages Baroli and Pehladpur Majra Baroli including the land of the petitioners for the development and utilization of land as road and greet belt area Faridabad. The award was passed on 20.2.1996 (Annexure P-4). The petitioners along with other land owners filed CWP No. 2070 of 1996 (Annexure P-7) which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 21.4.1998 (Annexure P-8) with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. They are still in physical possession of the land in question. According to the petitioners, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in physical possession of the land in dispute. It was claimed that in such circumstances, in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act had lapsed. It was further submitted that since no demand notice claiming the relief as claimed in respect of lapse of notifications has been filed with the respondents, liberty be granted to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition, however, direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.05.06 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No. 7875 of 2015 -3- the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before the appropriate authority. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioners within a period of two months from today, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to them within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioners shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate their claim before the concerned authority. Till the matter is decided by the said authority, status quo shall be maintained by the parties. It is, however, made clear that in case no such representation is filed within the stipulated period as noticed above, the interim order shall cease to operate, thereafter.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
April 27, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
GURBACHAN SINGH
2015.05.06 10:47
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh