The High Court disposed of a writ petition without merits due to contentious factual issues. It directed the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner's land ownership/cum-acquisition claim via a speaking order within four months.
Directing respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to examine the claim and pass a speaking order within four months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.18620 of 2016. Date of Decision: September 08, 2016
Krishna Devi ......Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
**CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA. *****
Present: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
Surya Kant, J . (Oral)
The petitioner seeks a direction to the Municipal authorities and the District Administration to restore the entries of her ownership qua the land measuring 03 biswa comprising khewat No.13, khatoni No.17, Khasra No.725, Moja No.409, Hadbast No.1521, situated within the revenue estate of village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. It is stated that the above-stated land was released from acquisition vide order dated 23.10.1989 (P-2) passed by the Director, Urban Estate Department, Haryana but regardless of that order, HUDA authorities are claiming it to be under their ownership. The petitioner has alternately sought a direction that in case the authorities still insist that the subject land has been acquired then she should be paid compensation or the acquisition be declared to have lapsed under Section 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.09.16 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, Chandigarh
CWP No.18620 of 2016
[2]
We find that all these multiple reliefs have been sought by the petitioner vide a legal notice dated 05.02.2016 (P-5) which has not been dealt with by the authorities so far. Since there are contentious factual issues raised by the petitioner, we dispose of this writ petition without expressing any views on merits, with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to take up the petitioner's claim and decide it by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Dasti.
| [SURYA KANT] JUDGE |
|
|---|---|
| September 08, 2016 |
[SUDIP AHLUWALIA] |
| mohinder |
JUDGE |
| Whether speaking/reasoned | : Yes/No |
| Whether Reportable | : Yes/No |
Mohinder Kumar Kamboj 2016.09.16 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to restoration of land ownership entries or compensation/declaration of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013.
Whether Municipal and District Authorities ought to decide the claim through a speaking order.
What period is fixed for the authorities to dispose of the claim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishna Devi
State of Haryana
Surya Kant
Sudip Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
