Allowed

Ram Dhani Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Dec 2017CWP/27252/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed challenging land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The court held that since compensation was not paid and possession not taken after the collector's award, the acquisition of 630 square yards of land lapsed. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the acquisition of the land in question was declared as having lapsed.

Ram Dhani Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CWP No. 27252 of 2015

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 27252 of 2015 (O&M) Date of decision : 4.12.2017

¶5

Ram Dhani Singh and others

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill

¶11

Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana with Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Manoj Dhankhar, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

¶13

Rajesh Bindal, J.

¶14

The petitioners have filed the present petition claiming that in

¶15

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'), the acquisition has lapsed, as the petitioners have neither been paid compensation for the acquired land nor possession thereof has been taken from them. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act') were issued on 22.6.2006 and 20.6.2007, respectively. Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector (for short, 'the Collector') on 28.11.2008.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that neither compensation for the acquired land has been paid to the petitioners nor possession thereof has been taken from them. It was submitted that the petitioners are the owners to the extent of 630 square yards of land and they

¶17

Sharmila Devi 2017.12.07 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CWP No. 27252 of 2015

¶19

-2-

¶20

had constructed houses thereon prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The respondents had released the adjoining areas from acquisition. The land in dispute falls in between the released area and there is no access to the land. It was further submitted that the petitioners are still in physical possession of the land in question.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that the petitioners are the owners of 630 square yards of land and there were houses constructed thereon prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The fact that the petitioners are still in physical possession of the acquired land is also not disputed by the State and further that compensation for the acquired land has not been received by the petitioners.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper

¶23

book.

¶24

Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act provides that acquisition of land would lapse in cases where award had been announced by the Collector five years prior to the enactment of the 2013 Act i.e. 1.1.2014, in case either the compensation for the acquired land has not been paid or the possession thereof has not been taken.

¶25

In the case in hand, it is admitted position on record that neither compensation for the acquired land has been paid to the petitioners nor possession thereof has been taken from them. The petitioners are the owners to the extent of 630 square yard of land and they had constructed houses thereon prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the 1894 Act. The land in dispute falls in between the areas, which the State had already been released from acquisition and there is no access to the land.

¶26

Sharmila Devi 2017.12.07 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CWP No. 27252 of 2015

¶28

-3-

¶29

For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, ingredients as contained in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act having been complied with, the acquisition of land in question has lapsed.

¶30

The writ petition is allowed.

¶31

(Rajesh Bindal) Judge (Gurvinder Singh Gill) Judge 4.12.2017 sharmila Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶32

Sharmila Devi 2017.12.07 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Ram Dhani Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dhani Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Riviera Textile Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs Punjab National Bank & Another

Rajesh Kumar Sharma Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Noble Alchem Pvt. Ltd. Vs Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Anr.

Parmjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Lala Ram Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mahavir & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.