Disposed

Bhubneshwar Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 May 2013CWP/11438/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, directing the respondent to decide a compensation representation within two months. The court left merits open but affirmed the right to a speaking order with a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Diction of respondent no. 3 to decide the compensation representation by passing a speaking order after hearing within two months.

Bhubneshwar Lal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No. 11438 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 11438 of 2013

¶5

Date of Decision:- May 24, 2013

¶6

Bhubneshwar Lal and others

¶7

..............PETITIONER(S)

¶8

vs.

¶9

State of Haryana and others

¶10

...........RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

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

¶12

Present:Mr. Virender Mandhan, Advocate, for Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for issuance of directions to the respondents to pay the compensation to the petitioners in respect of the land which has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners filed CWP No.22983 of 2012 impugning the notification dated 05.04.1990 issued under Section 4 of the Act, notification dated 04.04.1991 issued under Section 6 of the Act and also order dated 25.08.2008.

¶15

This Court, while upholding the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act and the order dated 25.08.2008 in the aforesaid writ petition, had observed that the claim of the petitioners for compensation could not be entertained since there was no prayer made in that writ petition. However, it was left open to the petitioners to approach the respondents for seeking compensation and it was further observed that in case such an application was filed, the same was to be decided in accordance with law.

¶16

It has been averred in the present writ petition that representation (Annexure P-5) dated 25.03.2013 had been filed with respondent no. 3 claiming

¶17

CWP No. 11438 of 2013

¶18

¶19

the compensation but no decision thereon has been taken so far.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, perusing the petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of at this stage by directing respondent no. 3 to take a decision on the representation (Annexure P-5) by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with law.

¶21

(Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge

¶22

24.05.2013 (G.S. Sandhawalia) shivani Judge

Bhubneshwar Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhubneshwar Lal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Bedo Devi Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/S Amit Traders Vs Punjab Mandi Board

Vaibhav Chaudhary Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Santo & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.