Disposed

Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2014CWP/9457/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment directs the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's claim that the prior land acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when deciding his pending representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the plea of lapsed acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act while deciding the pending representation.

Randhir Singh 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.9457 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 16, 2014

¶3

Randhir Singh versus

¶4

State of Haryana and others

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN. ****

¶8

Present : Mr.H.N.Sahu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶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

¶14

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

This is the third attempt of by the petitioner to secure the release of his land measuring 750 square yards where he claims to have constructed a residential house. The photographs (Annexure P-2) are also sought to be relied upon. The above-stated piece of land was acquired vide notifications dated 09.09.2002 (Annexure P-4) and 08.09.2003 (Annexure P5) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1894 Act'), respectively, followed by Award dated 06.09.2005.

¶16

The petitioner challenged the acquisition of his plot in CWP No.3668 of 2013 which was withdrawn on 20.02.2013 with liberty to approach the respondentauthorities.

¶17

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.29 14:48 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶18

CWP No.9457 of 2014

¶19

[2]

¶20

The petitioner submitted a representation and thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No.22175 of 2013 which was disposed of on 07.10.2013 with a direction to the respondentauthorities to decide the petitioner's representation by passing a speaking order as he was alleging discrimination against him in the matter of release of the land after passing of the Award.

¶21

While the above-mentioned order dated 07.10.2013 passed by this Court in the petitioner's second writ petition is yet to be complied with, he has instituted this third writ petition, this time on the ground that since he is in possession of the acquired land for a period of more than five years after passing of the Award, the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2013 Act') are applicable and the previous acquisition stands lapsed. Reliance is placed on the observations and directions issued by this Court in CWP No.6267 of 2014 (Gurjeet Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others) decided on 01.04.2014 (Annexure P-14).

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any views on his claim that the structures shown in the photographs (Annexure P-2) are in existence before the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act, but having regard to the additional plea taken in this writ petition, based upon the 2013 Act, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondents that while deciding the representation of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 07.10.2013 passed in CWP No.22175 of 2013, his additional plea that the previous acquisition has lapsed in view of Section 24 (2) of the 2013 Act, be also considered and let

¶23

Kumar Mohinder 2014.05.29 14:48 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶24

CWP No.9457 of 2014

¶25

[3]

¶26

an appropriate order in this regard be passed in accordance

¶27

with law.

¶28

Ordered accordingly. Dasti.