Disposed

Mathura Parshad etc. v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Nov 2013CWP/3979/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court resolved a writ petition challenging land acquisition notifications by directing a joint inspection team comprising revenue, Air Force, and HUDA officials to verify if the petitioner's construction lies within the prohibited 900-meter zone of Gurgaon Ammunition Depot. If inside, the petition is dismissed; if outside, the state must reconsider under established policy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner, Air Force Authorities, and HUDA to form a Joint Inspection Team for fresh measurement of the land with one week's notice to the petitioner.

Mathura Parshad etc. Vs State of Haryana — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.3979 of 1992 Date of Decision: November 06, 2013

¶3

Mathura Parshad and another .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

¶4

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA.

¶5

Present : Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sunil Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Patter, Senior DAG, Haryana.

¶6

-.-

¶7

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶8

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶9

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶10

¶11

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶12

The petitioners impugn the notifications dated 6.7.1981 (Annexure P-1) and 25.6.1982 (Annexure P-2) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively, besides the notice dated 6.3.1992 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 9 of the Act.

¶13

The notifications pertain to acquisition of land of the petitioners and their co-sharers, measuring 14 kanal-1 marla situated within the revenue estate of village Mulahera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon.

¶14

One of the plea taken by the respondents for controverting the claim of the petitioners is that the subject land falls within the prohibited area of 900 meters around the Ammunition Depot, Gurgaon, where raising of construction is

¶15

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.18 12:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶16

CWP No.3979 of 1992

¶17

[2]

¶18

prohibited in view of the notification issued under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Defence of India Act, 1903.

¶19

The petitioners, on the other hand, rely upon the site plan duly authenticated by various authorities and is said to have been produced before the 1^st Division Bench in a Public Interest Litigation, i.e., CWP No.15171 of 2010 (Suresh Goyal versus Union of India and others) and others connected cases to urge that their land is located outside the 900 meters radius of Ammunition Depot.

¶20

We have taken a firm view in CWP No.13543 of 1990 (Krishan Chand Jain and others versus State of Haryana and others) decided on 31.10.2013, that irrespective of class of construction or the collusion/connivance/inaction of the authorities in permitting to raise such like structures in the prohibited area, this Court shall not regularize the constructions which fall within the prohibited zone of Ammunition Depot.

¶21

The question which still arises for consideration is whether the land of the petitioners falls within the said prohibited area? It being a question of fact, the same can be effectively adjudicated by the authorities in association with the petitioners. Consequently, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon to send a request to the Air Force Authorities who shall then depute a senior officer (Expert) to head the Joint Inspection Team in which senior-most revenue officer of the district shall also be a member. Similarly, one senior officer from HUDA be also nominated as a member of the Inspection Team. The Inspection Team shall carry-out fresh measurements of land of

¶22

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.18 12:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶23

[3]

¶24

CWP No.3979 of 1992

¶25

the petitioners (only) after giving one week's advance notice to them. If, on inspection and subject to objections, if any, of the aggrieved parties, it is found that land/construction of the petitioners is within the prohibited zone of 900 meters radius of Ammunition Depot, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for the reasons assigned by us in CWP No.13543 of 1990, cited above. However, if the construction raised by the petitioners is situated outside the prohibited zone of 900 meters, we direct the State Government to reconsider their above mentioned claim in a non-discriminatory manner and in terms of the Government policy dated 26.10.2007. The appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶26

Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain

status-quo.

Dasti.

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

November 06, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA] Mohinder JUDGE

¶31

Kumar Mohinder 2013.12.18 12:24 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Mathura Parshad etc. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathura Parshad etc. v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. Vs State of Haryana

Sunnyvilla Cooperative House Building So Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

The Saraswati Kunj Co-Operative House Bu Vs the State of Haryana and Others

Improvement Trust,Khanna Vs Kulbir Singh

Jagdish and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Rajender etc. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.