Disposed

Chand Singh and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2015CWP/11734/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking quashing of land acquisition notifications and declaration of lapse under the 2013 Act, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed representation. The authority was directed to decide the representation within four months, maintain status quo, and hear the petiners expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file a detailed representation; authority directed to decide within four months; status quo maintained.

Chand Singh and Another Vs State of Haryana and… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 11734 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 11734 of 2015

¶5

Date of Decision: 29.5.2015

¶6

Chand Singh and another

¶7

....Petitioners.

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Haryana and others

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL.

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Gagandeep Rana, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶14

In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notifications dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”), dated 31.12.2002 (Annexure P-2) under Section 6 of the Act and the award dated 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-3) vide which their land was acquired. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought declaring the acquisition proceedings having lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “2013 Act”).

¶15

The petitioners are owners in possession of the land measuring 22 kanal 15 marlas situated within the revenue estate of

¶16

GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.06.22 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No. 11734 of 2015 -2-

¶18

village Bohar, District Rohtak. Government of Haryana issued a notification dated 4.1.2002 (Annexure P-1) under Section 4 of the Act followed by notification dated 31.12.2002 (Annexure P-2) under Section 6 of the Act for acquisition of land of the petitioners for the development and utilization as residential, transport, communication, Sectors 4 and 5, Rohtak. The petitioners filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act. The award was passed on 29.12.2004 (Annexure P-3). They are still in physical possession of the land in question. No compensation has been paid to them. According to the petitioners, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in physical possession of the land in dispute and compensation has not been paid to them. It was claimed that in such circumstances, in view of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act had lapsed. It was further submitted that since no demand notice claiming the relief as claimed in respect of lapse of notifications has been filed with the respondents, liberty be granted to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition, however, direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all

¶21

GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.06.22 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶22

CWP No. 11734 of 2015

¶23

-3-

¶24

the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before the appropriate authority. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioners within a period of two months from today, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to them within a period of four months from the date of receipt of representation. The petitioners shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate their claim before the concerned authority. Till the matter is decided by the said authority, status quo shall be maintained by the parties. It is, however, made clear that in case no such representation is filed within the stipulated period as noticed above, the interim order shall cease to operate, thereafter.

¶25

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶26

May 29, 2015 (REKHA MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

¶27

GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.06.22 11:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Chand Singh and Another v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chand Singh and Another 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

Surinder Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Geeta and Ors. Vs HUDA and Ors.

Sudhir Vs State of Haryana etc.

Darshan Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

Shamsher Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Prem Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.