CHUNNI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners filed a suit for injunction stating that they were living in constructed houses for the last about 25 years and were having all facilities of street light, water, electricity connection, ration card, sewerage, schools etc. They were apprehending threat to their possession. A writ petition being CWP No. 9782 of 1997 (Ambika Parsad v, State of Haryana) was filed in this Court wherein it was directed that the petitioners will not be evicted except after being heard. Thereafter, GOCP No. 1140 of 1998 was filed wherein the counsel for the State made a statement that the petitioners will be heard. The petitioners were heard by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad but rejected their claim. The petitioners were required to remove construction on or before 19-8-1999. It was further stated that the plaintiffs had a right to be allotted alternative sites and they had become owners by adverse possession and, therefore, they could not be dispossessed nor constructions put up by them could be removed. The plaintiffs also filed application for temporary injunction.

(2.) The plaintiffs are 13 in number but they claim to be representatives of persons mentioned in Annexure A to .the plaint. The defendants are State of Haryana, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Municipal Corporation, Faridabad.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit on the plea that the land was vested in the State Government by virtue of Award No. 8, dated 10-12-1963 whereby land was acquired by paying compensation and plaintiffs had no right in the suit property. Being trespassers, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any injunction against true owners.