SURJA BHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition claiming that acquisition of part of the land owned by him measuring 3 kanals and 8 marlas, forming part of khasra Nos. 19/1/2 and 22/2, situated in village Chandawali, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridahad has lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'the 2013 Act').

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was owner of 38 kanals and 7 marlas of land, which was sought to be acquired vide notification dated 31.7.2006, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the 1894 Act'). As there was construction existing on the acquired land, the petitioner filed objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act. The matter was considered by High Powered Committee and 10 marlas of land was left from acquisition when notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued. Immediately, the petitioner filed CWP No. 15618 of 2007 in this Court challenging the acquisition. Plea was raised that the petitioner having raised construction, the area deserved to be released from acquisition. The same was dismissed vide order dated 27.1.2010. The same was challenged before Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Civil Appeal No(s). 4254 of 2015 Karan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, was disposed of on 5.5.2015 granting liberty to the petitioner to invoke provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, as he claimed that neither compensation had been paid nor possession had been taken. Subsequent thereto, the present petition has been filed.

(3.) While invoking the provisions of the 2013 Act, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that possession of the acquired land had not been taken from the petitioner and further compensation for that portion of land had not been paid to him, hence, the acquisition has lapsed. To prove that the petitioner is still in possession of the land, he relied upon demarcation report dated 20.6.2014, which was carried out in terms of an order passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad. It was found that the petitioner was still in possession of the portion of land. During the pendency of CWP No. 15618 of 2007, interim stay regarding dispossession of the petitioner from the constructed area on the land under acquisition was granted by this court.