The court dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition, ruling that the petitioner must approach the competent authority regarding the recent precedential judgment since their representation is already pending with the authority.
Writ petition dismissed; direction to petitioner to cite recent judgment before competent authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.7006 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.04.2011
D.M. & Company
…..Petitioner
versus
The State of Haryana and others
……Respondents
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Naveen Sheoran,, Advocate for the petitioners
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
By filing this writ petition the petitioner has laid challenge to the acquisition of its land vide notifications dated 15.11.2002 and 12.11.2003 and also an award passed in the year 2004.
Perusal of the paper book indicates that at an earlier point of time also, the petitioner came to this Court, to lay challenge to the above said acquisition, by filing CWP No.16556 of 2008. On 17.9.2008, the said writ petition was disposed of by passing the following order:-
“Learned Senior counsel for petitioner submitted that notification for acquisition of land under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short “the Act”) was issued way back in 2002 and Award was passed in the year 2005. Irrespective of these facts, State of Haryana, in exercise of powers under Section 48 of the Act, has, thereafter, released a substantial
2
Civil Writ Petition No.7006 of 2011
part of the land under acquisition. Petitioner has come before this court in a second round of litigation by way of this writ petition on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned senior counsel also submitted that petitioner’s representations with such grounds dated 28.12.2006 and 4.9.2008, Annexures P-24 and P-31 are still pending with authorities concerned for consideration and disposal.
Ordinarily, this court should not interfere with acquisition process if there is an inordinate delay or laches in filing writ petition. In the instant case, though petitioner has come in writ petition after 3 years of passing of award, but we cannot over look a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of the kind as alleged herein.
In these premises, we dispose of this writ petition with directions to authorities concerned to consider and dispose of this case, as also similar other cases where representations/ legal notices are pending, on merits within a time frame of 4 weeks from the date of receiving a copy of this order. Grant of such liberty and issuance of directions would not be construed to mean that the State Government would not decide the matter on merit independently and pass appropriate orders as it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of each case.
This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.”
As per information supplied, petitioner’s case has yet not been finalized by the competent authority, before whom, it is pending in terms of the aforesaid order.
3
Civil Writ Petition No.7006 of 2011
This writ petition has again been filed to lay challenge to the above said acquisition, by placing reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court on 28.1.2011 (P36) in CWP No.19595 of 2005.
We feel that at this stage, this writ petition cannot be entertained. Petitioner’s case is pending consideration before the competent authority in terms of an order passed by this Court on 17.9.2008. If the petitioner is entitled to get any relief on the basis of the judgment now passed in CWP No.19595 of 2005 decided on 28.1.2011, he may cite that judgment before the competent authority.
Disposed of.
(Jasbir Singh) Judge
25.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to entertain a writ petition challenging land acquisition when the petitioner's representation is pending before the acquisition authority.
Whether the recent judgment in CWP No.19595 of 2005 affects the disposal of the current pending representation.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
D.M. & Company
The State of Haryana
Jasbir Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
