Karam Chand Vs The State of Haryana and Others

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 22 May 2014 Civil Writ Petition No. 10088 of 2014
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Civil Writ Petition No. 10088 of 2014

Hon'ble Bench

Surya Kant, J; Lisa Gill, J

Advocates

Vikram Singh, Advocate for the Appellant; Palika Monga, Deputy AG, Haryana, Advocate for the Respondent

Final Decision

Disposed Off

Acts Referred

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Section 4, 6#Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Section 24(2)

Judgement Text

Translate:

Surya Kant, J.@mdashNotice of motion to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 only at this stage.

2. On our asking, Ms. Palika Monga, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on their behalf.

3. Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel during the course of the day failing which this order shall be

automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no need to seek counter-reply from respondent Nos. 1 & 2 or to serve

respondent No. 3 at this stage.

5. The petitioner impugns acquisition of his land carried out vide notifications dated 11.07.2006 (Annexure P-1) and 16.07.2007 (Annexure P-2)

issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), respectively, on the premise that since

possession of the acquired land has not been taken from him, the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereafter referred to as ''2013 Act'') shall apply and the old

acquisition is deemed to have lapsed.

6. The question whether possession has been taken or not, is essentially a question of fact. In such like situation, this Court in CWP No. 6267 of

2014 (Gurjeet Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others) decided on 01.04.2014, has observed as follows:-

...The question whether physical possession of the entire land was taken by the authorities or the petitioners continue to retain the same without

intervention by any Court, can also be effectively decided by the respondents on verification of the record. We thus, dispose of this writ petition

without expressing any views on merits, with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to treat this writ petition as representation-cum-claim petition

on behalf of the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law or in the light of the observations made herein-above, within a period of

three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order...

7. The instant writ petition is also thus disposed of in the above-reproduced terms.

8. If there exists any construction at the site, its demolition shall remain stayed till the matter is decided by the authorities.

9. Ordered accordingly.

10. Dasti.

From The Blog
Moti Ram Deka & Ors vs General Manager, N.E.F. Railways & Ors (1963)
Oct
19
2025

Landmark Judgements

Moti Ram Deka & Ors vs General Manager, N.E.F. Railways & Ors (1963)
Read More
M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. & Others vs State of Orissa & Others (1991)
Oct
19
2025

Landmark Judgements

M/s. Orissa Cement Ltd. & Others vs State of Orissa & Others (1991)
Read More