Petitioner sought mandatory direction for allotment of alternative land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding it suffered gross delay as the plot was offered in 2002, but the petitioner failed to deposit 25% cost.
Mandamus directing allotment of alternative site was not granted.
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.
1
C.W.P.No.19313 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.19313 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.01.2012
Parveen Ratra
....PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
....RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present : Mr.Randhir Singh Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
HEMANT GUPTA, J
The petitioner claims a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to complete the process of allotment of alternative site to him.
A plot measuring 195 square yard, situated in village Gurgaon, Tehsil & Distt. Gurgaon was acquired vide notification dated 29.03.1996 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein referred as 'the Act') in the said area. The petitioner alleges that he was running a business of manufacturing of auto parts. Subsequently, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 30.03.1996.
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the
2
C.W.P.No.19313 of 2009
notification intending to acquire land of the petitioner but the said writ petition was disposed of on the statement of counsel for the respondent that a plot measuring 200 square yards will be allotted to the petitioner in lieu of the acquire land. In pursuance of the said direction, a plot of 250 square meter was allotted vide communication dated 01.05.2002, a copy of which has been attached with the written statement as Annexure R-1. But the petitioner has not deposited 25% of the amount communicated in the said letter i.e. a sum of Rs.2,48,000/-. The present writ petition has been filed on 14.12.2009 to claim the said plot.
We find that the present petition is wholly misconceived, suffer from gross delay and latches. Only land measuring 195 square yard of the petitioner was acquired but a plot of 250 square meter was offered way back in 2002. Still, the petitioner has not deposited 25% tentative cost of the plot. The offer of the respondent for allotment of a plot was not accepted by the petitioner .
In view of the said fact, we do not find that any right accrues to the petitioner to claim plot after nine years of the offer and that any indulgence can be granted to the petitioner in the present petition.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE
24.01.2012 MAMTA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of an alternative plot after a delay of nine years despite the offer being made in 2002.
Whether the petitioner's failure to deposit 25% of the tentative cost of the allotted plot bars his claim to the land.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Parveen Ratra
State of Haryana
Others
Hemant Gupta
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
