Disposed

Bedo Devi v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2013CWP/11318/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus directions for the District Revenue Officer to process a compensation claim arising from a prior amicable settlement of land acquisition disputes, directing a decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.3 to decide on the representation (Annexure P-8) and pass a speaking order within two months.

Bedo Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

::1::

¶2

CWP No.11318 of 2013 (O & M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.11318 of 2013 (O & M)

¶5

Date of Decision: May 23, 2013

Smt. Bedo Devi

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶10

.... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

¶12

Present: Mr.Ashwani Kumar Bura, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

******** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶14

The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.3 The District Revenue Officer II-cum-Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, to make the payment of compensation to her in respect of the acquired land as per award dated 28^th January, 2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.3.

¶15

It has been averred in the writ petition that there were certain disputes between the parties with regard to the claims which were resolved during the pendency of CWP No.7684 of 2009 filed by the present petitioner by way of amicable settlement by them and while disposing of the said writ petition on 13.2.2013, it was recorded that as per settlement, out of the total land measuring 13 Kanals 14 Marlas, the petitioner is entitled to compensation qua 11 Kanals 14 Marlas. It was urged that in view of the order passed by this Court on 13^th February, 2013, and the fact that the dispute having been settled between the parties, the petitioner was entitled for release of the amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land.

¶16

::2::

¶17

CWP No.11318 of 2013 (O & M)

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a representation (Annexure P-8) has been addressed to the Land Acquisition Collector, Sonepat, on 12^th March, 2013, however, no decision has been taken thereon by the concerned authority so far.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present writ petition is disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondent No.3 to take a decision on Annexure P-8 and pass a speaking order thereon in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶20

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶21

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶22

May 23, 2013 sukhpreet

Bedo Devi v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bedo Devi v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Dharamvir Tyagi and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Indian Hydrophilic Academy Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Bhalla and Associates, Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Shekhupura Vs State of Punjab & Ors.