JUDGEMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. -
(1.)By filing the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged 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 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 judgment dtd. 27/10/2016 (Annexure P-9) passed by this Court in a bunch of cases, one of which was CWP No.2115 of 2014, titled as 'Pritam Kumar Goel and others Vs. State of Haryana and others'.
(2.)It has been pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioners had submitted their objections under Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dtd. 22/9/2004, but without deciding the same, notification dtd. 24/8/2005 (Annexure P-2) issued under Sec. 6 of 1894 Act. Thereafter, notice under Sec. 9 of the 1894 Act was issued, to which the petitioners again filed objections but without considering the same, award dtd. 21/3/2007 (Annexure P-3) has been passed. Thereafter, petitioners approached this Court by filing CWP No.16416 of 2006, which was disposed of vide order dtd. 31/10/2013 (Annexure P-7) upholding the notifications dtd. 27/8/2004 (Annexure P-l) and dtd. 24/8/2005 (Annexure P-2). Assailing the said order dtd. 31/10/2013 (Annexure P-7), petitioners had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (C) No.8891 of 2014, which also stood dismissed vide order dtd. 1/5/2017 (Annexure P-8), however, liberty was granted to the petitioners to take their remedies in accordance with law, if they have any grievance about lapsing of proceedings which may require adjudication of a disputed question of fact.
In the meantime, similarly situated landowner approached this Court for quashing the acquisition proceedings in the light of Sec. 24 (2) of 2013 Act, by filing CWP No.2115 of 2014, titled as 'Pritam Kumar Goel and others Vs. State of Haryana and others', which has been decided with eight other similar case vide judgment dtd. 27/10/2016 (Annexure P-9) granting the benefit of Sec. 24 (2) of 2013 to the landowners.
(3.)Counsel for the petitioners asserts that in the light of the above judgment of this Court and keeping in view the provisions as contained in Sec. 24 (2) of 2013 Act, respondents having neither taken physical possession of the land nor have 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, in view of Sec. 24 (2) of 2013 Act. It is asserted that the land acquisition proceedings under 1894 Act would lapse. Counsel for the petitioners, on this basis, submits that the notifications dtd. 27/8/2004 (Annexure P-l) and dtd. 24/8/2005 (Annexure P-2) as also award dtd. 21/3/2007 (Annexure P-3) cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.