Disposed

Labh Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2024CWP/19089/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging land acquisition proceedings as the issue of lapse had lost survival due to the Supreme Court's decision in Indore Development Authority. The petitioners were directed to file a fresh petition to claim benefits under the special package scheme.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed without commenting on merits; petitioners allowed to file fresh petition within four weeks for scheme benefits.

Labh Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

217

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.19089 of 2016 (O&M)

¶4

Date of Decision: 02.09.2024

Labh Kaur and others

…..Petitioners.

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶9

.....Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶11

¶12

Present:Mr. Rajesh Garg, Senior Advocate with Ms. Neha Matharoo, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J . (Oral)

¶15

CM No.4079-CWP of 2024

¶16

This is an application filed on behalf of the applicantspetitioners for placing on record the re-joinder (sic. replication) to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents.

¶17

The application is allowed and the re-joinder (sic. replication) is taken on record.

¶18

CWP No.19089 of 2016

¶19

The challenge in the present writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is made to the notification dated 21.02.2000 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act of 1894’) and the subsequent notification

¶20

YAG DUTT 2024.09.04 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶21

CWP No.19089 of 2016 (O&M) -2-

¶22

dated 02.02.2001 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894, as well as the resultant Award No.480 dated 07.05.2001 (Annexure P-3). The land is measuring 45 Kanals 16 Marlas, as detailed and described in para No.2 of the instant writ petition and situated at Village Mauli Baidwan, Tehsil Mohali, District Ropar (now Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar) (for short ‘the land in dispute’). The afore-said proceedings are challenged on account of the fact that the same were deemed to have lapsed 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 Act of 2013’).

¶23

The petitioners claim that their predecessor-in-interest namely Daya Singh was owner in possession of the land in dispute and they have raised certain claims in their pleadings as well as by filing the re-joinder (sic. replication) to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents. Perusal of document Annexure P-17 shows that letters of intent were issued by the authorities in favour of the land-owners on the basis of special package scheme. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that if the petitioners want to seek the benefit of special package scheme, it is open for them to avail the appropriate remedy by filing a separate writ petition as admittedly, in the present amended writ petition, their claim is only based on account of the lapsing of the proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, which issue, now, no longer survives in view of the law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal & others, (2020) 8 SCC 129.

¶24

YAG DUTT 2024.09.04 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶25

CWP No.19089 of 2016 (O&M) -3-

¶26

Resultantly, without commenting upon the merits we dispose of the present writ petition as being covered by the law laid down by the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority (supra) . However, the right of the petitioners to claim their benefit under the afore-said scheme is kept open by filing a fresh writ petition within 04 weeks if they so desire.

¶27

Needless to say that we have not observed anything on the rights as such of the petitioners regarding their claim for which they can press by filing the fresh writ petition within the afore-mentioned stipulated period.

¶28

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶29

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) September 02, 2024 JUDGE Yag Dutt Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether Reportable: No

¶30

YAG DUTT 2024.09.04 13:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Labh Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Labh Kaur and Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Balvir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Harchand Singh and Others Vs Director Rural Development and Panchayats/ Joint Development Commissioner (Ird) Pun & Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amarjit Singh Vs Superintending Canal Officer and Ors.

Bhim Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another