Basti Ram vs State Of Haryana & Ors.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

In the present writ petition, the following prayers have been made in the headnote: -

Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in the present case, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1894”) was issued on 30.03.1990 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was issued on 27.03.1991. It is further submitted that the award in the present case had been passed on 24.03.1993 and the acquisition was for a public purpose i.e. for the development and utilization of the land as residential, commercial and institutional area at Rewari. It is further submitted that the possession of the land in question was taken vide rapat No.489 dated 24.03.1993. It is submitted that the compensation more so with respect to land of the petitioner was ready and available and was tendered by the LIC at the time of passing of the award but the same was not taken by the petitioner deliberately. It is stated that the present case is squarely covered against the petitioner by virtue of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others, reported as (2020) 8 SCC 129. It is submitted that earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 06.04.2006 and even the SLP against the same was dismissed on 03.12.2007.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even in spite of the above, the rights of the petitioner to invoke the power of the authorities under Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 2013 Act”) would still survive. It is further submitted that in the said circumstances, the petitioner would not press the challenge to the notifications and the acquisition, but has submitted that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to move representation to the respondents-State by invoking the provisions of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act. It is further submitted that the competent authority of respondent no.1 be directed to consider and decide the said representation after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, in accordance with law in a time bound manner.

Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in case the petitioner is giving up his challenge to the notifications and the award and in case he files a representation requesting the State to invoke the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act, then, the said representation would be considered and decided after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of submission of the said representation.

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents-State, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition as far as the challenge to the notifications and the award is concerned, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation requesting the State Government to invoke the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act within a period of one month from today and in case any such representation is filed, the competent authority of respondent no.1 is directed to consider and decide the same after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said representation.

It is made clear that the said representation would only be filed on the aspect of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act and this Court has not opined on the merits of the same and the same would be considered independently in accordance with law.