JUDGEMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. -
(1.)By filing the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the notification dtd. 27/8/2004 (Annexure P-1) issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act'), notification dtd. 24/8/2005 (Annexure P-2) issued under Sec. 6 of the 1894 Act and the award dtd. 21/3/2007 (Annexure P-3) with a prayer for release of their land as per Sec. 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act') in the light of the judgments dtd. 27/10/2016 (Annexures P-9 and P-10) passed by this Court in CWP No.2115 of 2014, titled as 'Pritam Kumar Goel & others Vs. State of Haryana & others'.
(2.)Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.l (M/s Ashwani Udyog) is owner in possession of land measuring 5 bigha and 14 biswas comprised in Khasra Nos.84, 85, part of khasra No.44, situated in the revenue estate of village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, where a saw mill and cement trading business are being run. Petitioner No.2 (M/s Ajay Enterprises) is owner in possession of land measuring 22 bigha and 12 biswas comprised in Khasra No.87, 88, 96, 97 and part of Khasra No.89, 90, 92, 94, 41 and 42 in the same revenue estate of village Tejli, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, where a saw mill and other allied activities are being run. He submits that the petitioners have neither claimed nor received any compensation in pursuance to the impugned award dtd. 21/3/2007 (Annexure P-3). He asserts that in the light of the provisions as contained in Sec. 24 (2) of 2013 Act, respondents having neither taken physical possession of the land nor the compensation amount been disbursed, would render the land of the petitioners acquired vide award dtd. 21/3/2007 (Annexure P-3) liable to be released, especially when the petitioners are running saw mill and other business activities thereon. It is asserted that the land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act would lapse. Counsel for the petitioners, on this basis, asserts that the notifications dtd. 27/8/2004 (Annexure P-1), 24/8/2005 (Annexure P-2) and award dtd. 21/3/2007 (Annexure P-3) cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.
(3.)On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that after considering the objections filed by the petitioners under Sec. 5-A of 1894 Act, constructed area along with proportionate area of petitioner No.l measuring 1613 square yards comprising in Khasra No. 84-85 consisting of office room, store-3, labour quarter, cattle shed, store and toilet out of 4B-14B was left out from acquisition and constructed area along with proportionate area measuring 2470 square yards comprising in Khasra No.87, 88, 89, 90, 92 and 94 consisting labour quarter-3, industrial shed-4, office room-1, temple and room out of 22B-12-B of petitioner No.2 was released from the acquisition and only their vacant land was notified for acquisition under Sec. 6 of the 1894 Act.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.