AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
In the present petition, following prayers have been made:
“Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus/certiorari for setting aside the acquisition proceedings qua the land of petitioner notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 vide notification bearing No. LAC(G)-NTLA/2005/1151 dated 20.06.2005 (Annexure P-2) published in the Haryana Government Gazette Extraordinary followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 bearing No.LAC(G)/NTLA-2006/1249 dated 19.06.06 (Annexure P-4) and the award No.46 announced on 22.02.07 (Annexure P-5) having been lapsed in terms of Section 24 of the 'The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013' and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of 'Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Harakchand 2014(1)RAJ 542'; and Further for the issuance of such other appropriate order as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice and fair play.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition i.e. CWP-26914-2013 and the coordinate Division Bench vide order dated 09.12.2013 had declined to interfere with the impugned acquisition but had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority along with material in support of the plea of discrimination. Reference has been made to the order dated 09.12.2013, the relevant portion of which is highlighted and reproduced hereinbelow:
“For the reasons afore-stated while declining to interfere with the impugned acquisition at this belated stage, we grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority alongwith material in support of the plea of discrimination. If such a representation is made, we direct the State Government to consider and decide the same in accordance with law/Government Policy by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receiving such a representation. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. December 09, 2013”
It is submitted that in pursuance to the said order, the petitioner has specifically averred in paragraphs 13 to 15 that the petitioner had submitted a copy of the writ petition along with the copy of the order with the request that the same be treated as a representation and thereafter had even given a formal representation dated 30.01.2015 and had further given a legal notice dated 16.02.2016 but no speaking order on the same has been passed, although in the reply, the respondents have stated that personal hearing was given to the petitioner. It is thus argued that it was incumbent upon the respondent-authorities to have complied with the directions of the coordinate Division Bench and is further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondent-authorities consider the legal notice dated 16.02.2016 (Annexure P-13) and pass an order on the same in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his representative and is further submitted that in case any merit is found in the same, then, necessary relief be also granted to the petitioner.
Learned State counsel has submitted that the said legal notice dated 16.02.2016 would be considered and decided by respondent No.1 within a period of four months from today and in case the pleas of the petitioner are found to be meritorious, then, necessary relief would also be granted to the petitioner.
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.1 to decide the legal notice dated 16.02.2016 within a period of four months from today, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his representative. In case, respondent No.1 finds that the pleas raised by the petitioner are meritorious, then, necessary relief would also be granted to the petitioner expeditiously.
It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and respondent No.1 would consider and decide the legal notice independently.