JAI BHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged notification dtd. 19/7/2002 (Annexure P-3) issued under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act'), notification dtd. 17/7/2003 (Annexure P-4) issued under Sec. 6 of the 1894 Act and award No.4 dtd. 16/7/2005 (Annexure P-5) qua the land measuring 6 kanal and 8 marla, comprised in Rect. No.38//17/2, 18/1, 23/1/3 and 58//3/1/2 situated in village Patti Gaddar, N.H.I52, Bypass Road, Tehsil and District Kaithal, with a prayer for release of their land as per Sec. 24 (2) of the Right of Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as '2013 Act'). Petitioners have also pressed into service a plea of discrimination which is alleged to have been meted out to them as 85 properties were released vide various letters, copies of which have been appended as Annexures P-7 and P-8.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners asserts that the petitioners are owners of the land referred to above and are in continuous possession thereof till date. The land of the petitioners which has been acquired is 6 kanal and 8 marla qua which they have filed this writ petition. The facts with regard to the issuance of the notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 as also the subsequent award passed thereon, as referred to above as also the deposit of the award amount and receipt thereof by the petitioners has not been disputed. However, it has been asserted that the amount of compensation qua this piece of land i.e. 6 kanal and 8 marla stands refunded. In support of this fact, reference has been made to the letter dtd. 22/9/2008 (Annexure P-6) issued by the Tehsildar, Kaithal.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has asserted that the land of the petitioners which they are claiming to be released, affects the planning of 100 meter green belt including 24 meter wide road as per approved layout plan. He asserted that the petitioners have already lifted their compensation amount as has been admitted by them and merely because they assert that they have redeposited the amount of compensation qua the land in question, cannot be accepted nor does it give them a right to take such a plea as there is no provision under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which would permit refund/re-deposit of such amount. That apart, in any case, it is asserted that the fact remains that the amount of compensation as assessed by the Award stands deposited with the Collector and was always available for disbursement to the petitioners, which they, as a matter of fact, had taken and therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others 2020 (AIR) SC 1496, the claim of the petitioners cannot be accepted.