Vijay Nirmohi vs State of Haryana and others

Notice of motion.

Ms. Safia Gupta, AAG, Haryana, present in Court, accepts

notice on behalf of the respondents. Copies furnished.

For the nature of order I propose to pass in the matter, no

formal written statement(s)/counter affidavit(s) on behalf of the respondents

is indeed necessary, at this stage. Thus, with the consent of the parties, the

petition is being finally disposed of.

Vide this petition, under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of

India, a writ in the nature of mandamus is being prayed, directing the

respondents to issue an instrument of annuity to the petitioners on account of

the acquisition of their land, in accordance with the RR Policy, dated

07.12.2007 (Annexure P1) and other benefits. Vide notification dated

04.07.2006, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, a

land measuring 724.82 acres, including the land owned by the petitioners,

was sought to be acquired for development and utilization of land as

residential, commercial Sectors 9, 10, 11 & 11-A, Fatehabad. The Land

Acquisition Collector, vide award dated 31.03.2008, assessed the market

value of the acquired land and the petitioners were accordingly disbursed the

compensation. So much so, the enhancement made by the Reference Court

as also this Court in the compensation awarded to the claimants has also

been realized by the petitioners. However, the limited grievance that the

petitioners have is that the respondents have failed to credit the amount in

the shape of annuity for the years 2015-16 and 2016-17, which they are

entitled to owing to the acquisition of their land holding. It is submitted that

the petitioners have even represented to the respondents vide representation

dated 26.07.2017 (Annexure P3), but to no avail.

In response, learned State counsel submits that the claim of the

petitioners as also their representation/legal notice dated 26.07.2017

(Annexure P3) which the respondents are alleged to have been served, shall

be considered and decided within a period of six weeks from today and the

appropriate orders, in accordance with law, shall be passed.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Needless to assert that in the event the petitioners are not found entitled to

the relief being claimed, the competent authority shall pass a comprehensive

order assigning reasons in support thereof.