PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the year 1977-78, land measuring 11 Kanals and 6 Marlas in village Madalpur was acquired by the State Government. On October 10, 2000, the petitioners have approached this Court through the present writ petition. They pray that a writ "in the nature of prohibition be issued restraining the respondents from taking the law into their own hands and forcibly uprooting the petitioners from their houses in the Abadi Deh of village Madalpur, Sector 15, Panchkula....." A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

(2.) ON January 21, 1977, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Thereafter a notification under Section 6 of the Act had been issued. Ultimately, in the year 1980 an award was given. After a lapse of about 8 years on August 12, 1988, the petitioners filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, for the grant of a permanent injunction. On October 4, 2000 the Civil Court dismissed the suit. The petitioners allege that on October 8, 2000 the respondents "resorted to demolishing" despite protest. They further allege that they had submitted an application to the respondent-Authorities for allotment of alternative accommodation. They maintain that in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Government vide letters dated September 10, 1987 and March 18, 1992, they are entitled to be allotted plots for the construction of their houses.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the land was acquired in the year 1977. It is also admitted that the award was given in the year 1980. The petitioners have not allowed the respondents to utilise the land by virtue of the injunction issued by the Civil Court in the year 1988. The suit, it appears, was dragged on for a period of 12 years. Now that the suit has been dismissed, the petitioners have approached this Court. The effort is to stay on the land despite the fact that the State Government had acquired it about 23 years back. We find no reason to allow the petitioners to do so.