Disposed

Vinod Kumar and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2014CWP/8328/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench followed prior judgment disposing of similar writ petition challenging land acquisition. Court directed authorities to treat petition as representation and decide legality of acquisition within three months, staying demolition of construction.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to treat petition as representation and decide within three months; demolition stayed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.8328 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 05, 2014

¶3

Vinod Kumar 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 MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL.

¶9

Present : Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy AG, Haryana.

¶10

-.-

¶11

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

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶16

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

¶17

this stage.

¶18

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

¶19

Let three 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.

¶20

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter-reply from respondent Nos.1 & 2 nor respondent No.3 need to be served at this stage.

¶21

The petitioners impugn acquisition of their land carried out vide notifications dated 27.04.2006 (Annexure P-1) and 26.04.2007 (Annexure P-2) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of

¶22

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

¶23

CWP No.8328 of 2014 [2]

¶24

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.

¶25

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:-

¶26

“....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....”

¶27

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

¶28

CWP No.8328 of 2014 [3]

¶29

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

¶30

If the petitioners have raised any construction, its demolition shall remain stayed till the matter is decided by the authorities.

¶31

Ordered accordingly.

¶32

Dasti.