Partly allowed

Kiran Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 May 2014CWP/9261/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging notifications under the Land Acquisition Act regarding Sector-10, Jhajjar. Relying on a prior judgment (Balbir Singh), the court directed the respondents to verify the existence of the petitioner's house at the time of notification. If construction existed, the land must be released while maintaining the public purpose of road widening. Status

What did the court decide?

Direction to verify the house's existence in four months per Government Policy; release of land if construction existed; status quo maintained.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.9261 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 14, 2014

Kiran Devi

.....Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

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

¶9

Present : Mr.Arun Yadav, 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

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5

¶16

only.

¶17

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

¶18

Let four 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.

¶19

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 &5 3 or to serve respondent No.2 at this stage.

¶20

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.02 16:45 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶21

CWP No.9261 of 2014

¶22

[2]

¶23

The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the notifications dated 7.7.2011 (Annexure P-1) and 06.07.2012 (Annexure P-3) issued under Sections 4 & 6 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (here-in-after referred to as 'the Act'), respectively, on the premise that petitioner's residential house has also been acquired. The land has been acquired for the public purpose of development of residential Sector-10, Jhajjar. The petitioner has placed on record photographs [Annexure P-5] of the house to substantiate her plea.

¶24

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that somewhat similar plea(s) were considered by this Court in CWP No.21480 of 2012 (Balbir Singh versus versus State of Haryana and others) decided on 10.07.2013, wherein also the acquisition pertained to Sector-9A, Jhajjar.

¶25

Whether the residential house was in existence at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act is essentially a question of fact which can be effectively determined by the respondent-authorities.

¶26

The writ petition is thus disposed of in terms of the order dated 10.07.2013 passed in Balbir Singh's case (supra) with a direction to the respondents to verify the assertion made by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the Government Policy dated 26.10.2007, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶27

We further direct that if the petitioner is found to have raised construction before issuance of Section 4 notification, the acquired land to that extent shall be released without effecting the public purpose of widening of road.

¶28

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.02 16:45 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶29

[3]

¶30

CWP No.9261 of 2014

¶31

Till then both the parties are directed to maintain

¶32

status-quo.

¶33

Dasti.

¶34

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE

¶35

May 14, 2014 [LISA GILL] Mohinder JUDGE

¶36

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.02 16:45 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Kiran Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors.

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

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

Prem Chand Bansal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Nepal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sarwan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harjinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Krishan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.