R S DYE HOUSE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (oral)

(2.) THE land of the petitioner, on which the petitioner claims to be running a small scale industry, was sought to be acquired through a notification dated 12.9.2001 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Although the petitioner filed objections under section 5-A of the Act. THE respondents issued a declaration under section 6 of the Act on 1.3.2002. Even after the issuance of the declaration under section 6 of the Act, the petitioner continued to represent to the authorities, claiming the release of the acquired land. Eventually an order dated 7.6.2005 was passed by the Director, Department of Urban and Rural Planning, Haryana (Annexure P17) rejecting the claim of the petitioner. THE petitioner is seeking to impugn the aforesaid order through the instant writ petition. In order to do so, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in M/s Radhey Textiles & others V. State of Haryana & others (Civil Appeal No.412 of 2006, decided on 10.1.2006) (Annexure P20) wherein the Apex Court has directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the land owners similarly situated as the petitioners, if those who were before the Supreme Court moved appropriate representations to the authorities. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has moved a representation dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure P21), which is not likely to be considered by the respondents, on account of the fact that the petitioner was not before the Supreme Court as one of the petitioners/appellants in the matter referred to above. Although we are satisfied that the petitioner has approached this Court prematurely in the sense that after submitting a representation dated 25.1.2006, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on 30.1.2006, yet we are of the view that ends of justice requires us, specially in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in M/s Radhey Textiles case (supra), that the respondents be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of the factual position brought to their notice through its representation dated 25.1.2006 within the same period, as has been specified by the order passed by the Apex Court in M/s Radhey Textiles case (supra). Disposed of accordingly.