Partly allowed

Satpal Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Nov 2013CWP/8733/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a consent order, the Court disposed of a writ petition challenging land acquisition. Directing authorities to allot three 10-marla plots to the petitioner brothers as an exception to state policy to prevent forced displacement, while adjusting compensation accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondent authorities to allot three plots of 10 marlas each to the petitioners as an exception to policy and directing parties to maintain status-quo.

Satpal Yadav & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.8733 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 07, 2013

¶3

Satpal Yadav and others

¶4

.....Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Present : Mr.Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Patter, Senior DAG, Haryana.

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioners impugn the notifications dated 25.01.2008 (Annexure P-11) and 23.1.2009 (Annexure P-15) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively, to the extent of acquisition of their land measuring 8 biswas comprised in Khasra Nos.810 and 811 min, situated within the revenue estate of Wazirabad, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The above-stated land has been acquired for “residential and sector road, sector-52 part at Gurgaon”.

¶17

In view of the fact that we are disposing of this writ petition by a consent order for which we have persuaded learned State counsel as well as the authorities besides the petitioners, there is no necessity to refer the detailed facts with regard to earlier acquisition or release of the land before issuance of the impugned notifications.

¶18

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

¶19

CWP No.8733 of 2009(O&M)

¶20

[2]

¶21

Suffice it to mention that as per the lay-out plan of Sector 52-Part, Gurgaon, the land of the petitioners is affecting 8 plots measuring 10 marlas besides 10 meter wide road in that sector.

¶22

The petitioners are three brothers who as of now are living jointly in the residential house located at the acquired site. It was in this backdrop that we explored the possibility of an amicable settlement so that all the three petitioners may be allotted one plot of 10 marla each on the same site as would save them from complete displacement and at the same time, respondent-authorities would be able to develop the remaining plots as well as 10 meter road.

¶23

On being suggested, learned counsel for the petitioners on instructions fairly states that if each petitioner is allotted one residential plot of 10 marlas on the same site/sector, they would be satisfied and in that event, their writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn.

¶24

Though Mr.S.S.Patter, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has pointed out that as per the Rehabilitation & Resettlement Policy of the State Government dated 9.11.2010, the petitioners are entitled to only two plots measuring 90 square yard each, however keeping in view the long drawn litigation and the fact that the petitioners are three brothers who in due course of time need separate dwelling units for their respective families, we direct the respondent-authorities to allot three plots, i.e., measuring 10 marlas each to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.

¶25

The parties are directed to maintain status-quo till the allotment of plots to each petitioner. On such allotment,

¶26

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

¶27

[3]

¶28

CWP No.8733 of 2009(O&M)

¶29

the petitioners would be required to vacate the remaining land and if need be, they shall demolish the existing structures to ensure that the respondent-authorities are able to develop and utilize it for residential plots and for construction of 10 meter wide road. The allotment of three plots to the petitioners shall be taken as an exception to the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy dated 9.11.2010 and it shall not be cited as a precedent. The respondents, however, shall be entitled to deduct the area of three plots alongwith proportionate additional land utilized for the development of sector, out of the acquired land of the petitioners and the compensation shall be payable only for such reduced area of the acquired land.

¶30

Ordered accordingly.

¶31

Dasti.

¶32

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE November 07, 2013 [SURINDER GUPTA] Mohinder JUDGE

¶33

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

Satpal Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpal Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & 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

Mathura Parshad etc. Vs State of Haryana

Improvement Trust,Khanna Vs Kulbir Singh

Jagdish and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pb. Agriculture University Teachers Association Ludhiana Vs Pb. Agriculture University Ludhiana

Union of India and Anr. Vs Babu Ram and Ors.

Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. Vs B.R. Verma