Disposed

Harphool and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2014CWP/19075/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the reconstitution of acquisition notifications under the RFRLA 2013 claiming lapsed notifications. The High Court ordered a direction to respondents to decide a representation expeditiously and maintain status quo.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second and third respondents to decide the representation expediently within three months; parties to maintain status quo.

Harphool and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.19075of2014(O&M)
 DATE OF DECISION: 15.09.2014

¶3

Harphool and others

¶4

…..Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Haryana and others

¶7

 .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICEASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,ACTINGCHIEFJUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU

¶9

Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):

¶11

The petitioners have prayed for quashing

¶12

notifications dated 9.6.2003 and 2.6.2004 issued under Sections

¶13

4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, appended as
Annexures P/1 and P/2, respectively, whereby the lands of the
petitioners situated in village Tigra, District Gurgaon were
acquired as well as Award dated 20.12.2005 (Annexure P-4).

¶14

Learned counsel submits that till date the

¶15

possession of the acquired land is with the petitioners and,
therefore, the notifications have lapsed in view of the
provisions enumerated under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The petitioners have
also submitted a representation dated 28.8.2014 (Annexure P-9)

¶16

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.15 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CWP-19075-2014

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

before respondent No.2, but the same has not been decided so
far.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners,
we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to second and
third respondents to decide the representation filed by the
petitioners expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. In the meantime, the parties shall maintain status-quo
as it exists today.

¶21

Disposed of.

¶22

15.09.2014 (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)
parkash*JUDGE

¶23

PARKASH CHAND 2014.09.15 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Harphool and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harphool 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

Mohan Lal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Dinseh Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Shiv Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Lakhvir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Dariya Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Virender Suhag Vs State of Haryana & Anr.