HARI KISHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased 14/82 shares equivalent to 14 marlas of land in Khasra No. 109//18/3 (4-2) vide registered sale deed dtd. 30/1/1986 in the revenue estate of Village Bhiwani Lohar, Tehsil & District Bhiwani. The said land was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notifications dtd. 4/6/1986 and 15/4/1987 issued under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, followed by award dtd. 10/11/1987 for the public purpose, namely, the development and utilization of land as Residential and Commercial area under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. Though the petitioner did not challenge the acquisition proceedings, however some co-sharers in the land in question had challenged the proceedings before this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition No.3419 of 1987, wherein this Court had stayed the dispossession of the petitioners therein on 25/1/1988. The said petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 11/3/2011. It is urged that the petitioner is still in actual and physical possession of the land in question. He had constructed a room and four walls where the petitioner used to reside and tether his cattle. Further, despite announcement of award on 10/11/1987, no compensation has been paid to the petitioner and same is lying with the Land Acquisition Collector. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings qua the land in question stands lapsed in view of Sec. 24(2) of Act of 2013.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Ankur Mittal, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondent-State of Haryana submits that the contention of the petitioner of being in possession of the land in question is devoid of merits as the possession of the land was taken by recording Rapat Roznamcha No. 121 dtd. 10/11/1987 and the same was handed over to the beneficiary department. He submits that the factum of the stay of dispossession from the land in favour of the co-sharers would not imply that such stay was in operation in favour of the petitioner as well. Since the possession of the land stands taken, same stands vested in the State free from all encumbrances.