Disposed

Phul Singh etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC7 May 2014CWP/8664/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the retention of their acquired land, seeking a mandamus for its release as it remained unused for over a decade. The court noted Supreme Court precedents denying automatic return of land and declined to issue a mandamus on mere non-utilization grounds, directing authorities instead to consider the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's claim for release of unutilized land within four months by passing a speaking order.

Phul Singh etc. Vs State of Haryana etc. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.8664 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 07, 2014

¶3

Phul Singh 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.N.C.Kinra, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Palika Monga, Deputy AG, Haryana.

¶9

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

¶10

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 only.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no need to seek counter-reply from respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 or to serve respondent No.2 at this stage. 2] The petitioners who are residents of village Kishanpura, Tehsil and District Rohtak, seek a mandamus to direct the respondent-authorities for the release of their unused/un-utilized land which was acquired for the development of Commercial Sectors-4 & 5, Rohtak. As per their case, the

¶18

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.02 16:44 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.8664 of 2014

¶20

[2]

¶21

land of the petitioners described in para No.2 of the writ petition was acquired vide notifications dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure P-4) and 31.12.2002 (Annexure P-5) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respectively. The award was passed and compensation also received by the petitioners. 3] The grievance of the petitioners is that even after finalization of the acquisition, the State Government is adopting pick and choose policy and land of various persons, the details given in List (Annexure P-6) running into several acres, has been released.

¶22

4] So far as the petitioners' land is concerned, they have averred that the same is still in their possession as the respondents have not utilized it for any public purpose till date though more than 10 years have lapsed after the acquisition. On this premise, the petitioners seek a mandamus for the release of their un-utilized acquired land.

¶23

5] In Leelawanti and others versus State of Haryana and others (2012) 1 SCC 66, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that notwithstanding the provisions contained in the Land Administration Manual, there is no legal obligation on the State to return the acquired land to its owners after the purpose of acquisition is served. The claim for reconveyance of the acquired land on the premise that some portion of the acquired land had been released to the original land-owners was turned down by the Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board versus Chandrasekaran (dead) by LRS. and others, (2010) 2 SCC 786 also. 6] The petitioners, however, have attempted to draw distinction on the plea that the power of eminent domain has

¶24

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.02 16:44 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶25

CWP No.8664 of 2014

¶26

[3]

¶27

been abused in the instant case as their land was acquired without any object to utilize the same for a public purpose. It is contended that non-utilization of the land for a period of more than 10 years not for any public purpose fully substantiates their plea that the acquisition was a sheer burden on the State Exchequer without any public utility. 7] Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, we are of the view that in the light of the cited decisions, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue a mandamus for the release of acquired land only on the plea that it has not been utilized for any public purpose so far. The appropriate recourse would be to direct the respondents to consider the above-mentioned claim of the petitioners for which they have already represented the authorities vide representation dated 28.03.2014 (Annexure P-7). The writ petition is thus disposed of without expressing any views on merits, with a direction to respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 to consider the above-mentioned claim of the petitioners and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶28

Dasti.

¶29

May 07, 2014 [LISA GILL] Mohinder JUDGE

¶30

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.02 16:44 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Phul Singh etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phul Singh etc. v. State of Haryana etc.

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

Balkar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Phuman Singh Vs Union of India and Others

Jora Singh Vs Chief Administrator HUDA Panchkula and Others

Hawa Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Chander Bhan etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Ashwani Kumar Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Anr.