(1.) IN these writ petitions which have been filed in the year 1991, the petitioners have prayed that the land belonging to them which was acquired vide notifications dated 6. 7. 1981 and 25. 6. 1982 be restored to their possession along with superstructures existing on it because the respondents have failed to pay/offer compensation for the disputed land. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to pay to the petitioners solatium at the rate of 30% and also award interest on the amount of compensation and solatium.
(2.) PETITIONER Surjan (CWP No. 2027 of 1991) has alleged that he was owner of land measuring 37-Kanals 18 - marlas situated in the revenue estate of Dundahera, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, upon which he had constructed a residential house, installed a tubewell along with room and was cultivating the land. This land was acquired by the Government of Haryana by taking proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act')Notification Under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6. 7. 1981 for acquisition of 299. 51 acres of land, including the land belonging to the petitioner. Notification Under Section 6 was issued on 25. 6. 1982. One award in respect of 165. 72 acres of land including the land belonging to the petitioner was passed on 25. 3. 1983. Another award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 30. 4. 1984 in respect of the land measuring 110. 07 acres. In the mean time, the petitioner and others had filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition made by the Government. These writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court on 12. 10. 1983. Special Leave Petitions filed by the petitioner and others were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13. 9. 1988.
(3.) REPLY to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, who has stated that the petitioner was not the owner of the land bearing Killa Nos. 19/2/1 and 19/2/2 of Rectangle No. 55 and in fact Shri Lila and Shri Siria were the owners of the said land. It has also been stated that there was one well and a Haudi and there does not exist any construction over the disputed land. According to the respondent No. 2, award in respect of the land of the petitioner was announced on 25. 3. 1985. Regarding withdrawal of the amount, it has been stated that the amount was lying unclaimed and the petitioner had refused to accept the same at the time of announcement of the award. Respondent No. 2 has stated that no supplementary award in respect of the trees etc. has been made and the supplementary award shall be announced in accordance with law.