Courts dismissed a writ petition challenging land acquisition as elapsed under the 2013 Act. The court held that since petitioners received compensation and photographic evidence did not show construction, no case existed under the statute.
Writ petition dismissed.
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.
-1-
CWP No.20949 of 2016 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.20949 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.05.2017
Hari Chand Bhardwaj and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: - Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Petitioners have filed the present petition claiming that the acquisition of land has elapsed in view of the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'the 2013 Act'). Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the 1894 Act') was issued on 24.08.2000. It was followed by notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act on 22.08.2001. The award was announced by the Collector on 21.07.2003. Writ petition was filed claiming that there is construction existing on the acquired land. The fact that the petitioners had received the amount of compensation was not disputed. A perusal of the photographs, attached as Annexure P-10, does not suggest that there was any construction existing or is existing on the acquired land. First photograph merely shows barren land with wild grass whereas in second photograph merely a hut with grass is shown to have been constructed. The Ravinder Singh 2017.05.26 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this documentclaim made in the petition was that cattle shed is there, however, there is
-2-
CWP No.20949 of 2016 (O&M)
none.
As admittedly, amount of compensation had been received by the petitioners and they are not in possession of land, we do not find that any case is made out under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge
(Ramendra Jain) May 11, 2017 Judge R.S. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
Ravinder Singh 2017.05.26 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners can claim land acquisition has elapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act given they received compensation.
Whether there is construction existing on the acquired land despite the petitioners' claim.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
HARI CHAND BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
RAJESH BINDAL
RAMENDRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
