AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The dispute in above mentioned contempt petitions is that the directions of the writ Court quoted below has not been complied with:
"[41]. We are of the considered view that following the cited instances, it would be fair, just and reasonable to direct the respondents including HSIIDC to release the land of the petitioners in CWP Nos. 14365 of 2012 [Om Parkash v. State of Haryana], 8549 of 2013 [Mahinder Singh v. FC & PS, Government of Haryana], 11132 of 2013 [Bejai Singh v. FC&PS, Government, Haryana] and 14294 of 2013 [Sunil Kumar v. State of Haryana] equivalent to industrial plots not below the size of 30 × 60 square meters as depicted in the Revised Layout Plan or one commercial site out of "105 Meter Wide Commercial Pocket" duly earmarked in that plan. Where there are more than one owner [major co-sharers in the acquired land which is five acres or more], each one of them shall be considered for allotment of a separate plot but in their case the size of the industrial plot can be less than 30 × 60 square meter also. The industrial plot of 30 × 60 square meter or above or the commercial site, as the case may be, shall be allotted to the affected landowner only if his acquired land is one acre and above. The land-losers of less than one acre be given alternative site as per the R&R Policy dated 09th November, 2010. The above mentioned plot[s] may be given any where as per the revised layout plan but the same shall be treated to have been carved out on the 'released land' of the affected landowner. In other words, the total area of the acquired land of such allottee shall be reduced to the extent of the size of the plot given to him and while the affected landowner shall not pay any allotment price [except the development charges], the compensation of his acquired land shall also stand reduced proportionately. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken by the Corporation and State Government within a period of four months and the possession of the developed plots of released land shall be given to the petitioners in these cases at the earliest and in the first opportunity. No allotment of developed sites shall be made unless the affected petitioners are firstly accommodated."
The only grievance now raised is that instead of allotting the commercial cite out of "105 Meter Wide Commercial Pocket" in the earmarked plan, the same was being allotted in a commercial belt which was not in existence in the original earmarked plan.
Learned counsel for respondents on instructions from Mr. Ravish Jain, DTP/HSIIDC submits that a decision has been taken that the petitioners would be offered plot in "105 meter wide commercial pocket" as depicted in the earmarked plan.
In view of statement made, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no cause of action survives for pursuing the present contempt petition.
Disposed of.
The respondents are directed to communicate the said decision to the petitioners within two weeks. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law in case still some grievance survives.