Disposed

Balbir and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 May 2014CWP/8056/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged land acquisition via notifications under the 1894 Act, claiming Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act applied due to lack of possession. The Court, relying on recent precedent, disposed of the writ by directing the authorities to treat it as a representation-cum-claim and decide the factual question of possession within three months, while maintaining the status quo.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to treat it as a representation-cum-claim petition and decide within three months; status quo maintained.

Balbir and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.8056 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 09, 2014

¶3

Shri Balbir and others versus

¶4

State of Haryana and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL.

¶8

Present : Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy AG, Haryana.

¶9

-.-

¶10

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

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 & 2 only at

¶15

this stage.

¶16

On our asking, Ms.Palika Monga, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on their behalf.

¶17

Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of the day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶18

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no need to seek counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 & 2 or to serve respondent No.3 at this stage.

¶19

In compliance to the order dated 29.04.2014, first petitioner has filed an affidavit which is taken on record.

¶20

The petitioners impugn acquisition of their land carried out vide notifications dated 20.06.1983 (Annexure P-1)

¶21

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.21 15:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶22

CWP No.8056 of 2014 [2]

¶23

and 13.02.1984 (Annexure P-2) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively, on the premise that since possession of the acquired land has not been taken from them, the provisions contained in Section 24 (2) of 'the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as '2013 Act') shall apply and the old acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.

¶24

The question whether possession has been taken or not, is essentially a question of fact. In such like situation, this Court in CWP No.6267 of 2014 (Gurjeet Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others) decided on 01.04.2014, has observed as follows:-

¶25

“....The question whether physical possession of the entire land was taken by the authorities or the petitioners continue to retain the same without intervention by any Court, can also be effectively decided by the respondents on verification of the record. We thus, dispose of this writ petition without expressing any views on merits, with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to treat this writ petition as representation-cum-claim petition on behalf of the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law or in the light of the observations made herein-above, within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order....”

¶26

[3]

¶27

CWP No.8056 of 2014

¶28

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.21 15:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶29

The instant writ petition is also thus disposed of in the above-reproduced terms.

¶30

Meanwhile, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo. The petitioners shall not alienate or change the nature of the land.

¶31

Ordered accordingly.

¶32

Dasti

¶33

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE May 09, 2014 [LISA GILL] Mohinder JUDGE

¶34

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.21 15:56 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Balbir and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir and Others 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

Som Nath Vs State of Punjab and Another

Chhinder Pal Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Surjit Kaur & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Tej Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Narinderjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Virender Singh Katarya and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.