Partly allowed

Nepal v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC13 May 2014CWP/9095/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the refusal to release an acquired residential structure, the High Court set aside the acquisition officer's order. It directed the Director General of Town and Country Planning to call records, provide a hearing, and decide the claim within four months, while maintaining the status quo.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Director directed to call records, provide hearing, re-demarcate if needed, and decide on action within four months; status quo maintained.

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

¶1

CWP No.9095 of 2014

¶2

[1]

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 9095 of 2014(O&M) Date of Decision: May 13, 2014.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Nepal Singh

¶6

...... PETITIONER (s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

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

¶11

Present: Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? *****

¶14

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶15

Notice of motion.

¶16

On our asking, Ms. Palika Monga, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 & 4 and Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3 -HUDA.

¶17

Let two copies each of the writ petition be supplied to learned

¶18

State Counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.3 during the course of

¶19

Singh Omkar 2014.05.20 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CWP No.9095 of 2014

¶21

[2]

¶22

day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶23

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek reply/affidavit from the respondents at this stage.

¶24

The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to seek release of his residential house from acquisition?

¶25

The petitioner's property was acquired for development of Sectors 76, 77 and 78, Faridabad. The award for the acquired land was announced on 04.02.2011. The Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estates, Faridabad vide impugned order dated 26.03.2014 (Annexure P 28) has declined to release the petitioner's property primarily on the ground that no construction was found in existence at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the entire land was vacant.

¶26

The petitioner, on the other hand, counters the above-stated reasoning of the respondent-collector on the strength of photographs, Annexure P2 (Colly). He also refers to the site plan (Annexure P-11A) to contend that the adjoining property of Raj Singh and Partap Singh have been released and the denial of such a benefit to him, is totally discriminately.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears to us that the petitioner's claim for the release of existing structure requires reconsideration at the hands of the Competent Authority in a more dispassionate and fair manner. There is some merit in the contention that the Land Acquisition Collector would stick to his report sent

¶28

Singh Omkar 2014.05.20 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶29

CWP No.9095 of 2014

¶30

[3]

¶31

before issuance of Section 6 Notification. Since the acquisition has been made by the Urban Estates Department, it would be more appropriate if the petitioner's claim is decided by the Director General, Town and Country Planning, and Urban Estates Department, Haryana.

¶32

We, thus, without expressing any views on merit of the claim of petitioner, allow this writ petition in part; set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2014 (Annexure P28) passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Faridabad and direct the Director General, Town & Country Planning and Urban Estates Department to call for the records; give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner; get the area re-demarcated, if need be and thereafter, take an appropriate action in accordance with the Government policy, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order.

¶33

Order accordingly.

¶34

Till then, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo. In other words, the petitioner shall not raise any further construction at the site.

¶35

May 13, 2014. ‘om’

¶36

( LISA GILL ) JUDGE

¶37

Singh Omkar 2014.05.20 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Nepal v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nepal 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

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

Shallu and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

S.D. Adarsh Vidayala Vs State of Hry and Others

Prem Chand Bansal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ram Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.