RAJNEESH GANDHI Vs. THE COLLECTOR GURGAON AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of mine shall dispose of aforementioned two writ petitions, whereby the petitioner is aggrieved of the action of the State in mutating the land of the petitioner in favour of the HUDA-the beneficiary by virtue of the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Erstwhile Land Acquisition Act 1894.

(2.) Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sahil Nayyar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in both writ petitions submits that petitioner had acquired the ownership and possession of land situated in the revenue estate of Village Islampur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. In CWP No.5742 of 2015, Khasra Nos.326 measuring 1 bighas 2 biswa and 327 measuring 1 bigha and 6 biswa and in CWP No.3916 of 2015, Khasra No.337 measuring 1 bigha and 8 biswa was sought to be acquired by promulgation of notification under Sec. 4 of 1894 Act dated 27.11.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the aforementioned notification under Sec. 6 of 1894 Act issued on 24.11.2004 and award dated 211.2006 under Sec. 11 of the Act came to be passed but before that on 17.11.2006, both the petitioner had filed CWP No.18163 of 2006 challenging the compulsory acquisition. This Court on 21.10.2013 while issuing notice of motion had also grant the status quo with regard to the possession which continue to be in force till the disposal of the writ petition on 21.10.2013. However the mutation No.3016 was effected on 21.01.2015.

(3.) He further submits that no procedure as contemplated under Sec. 16 of 1894 Act has been complied with i.e. procedure of taking over the possession. In the absence of the same, mutation could not have been effected. He also relies upon the stand of the State taken in the written statement, whereby it has been stated that compensation determined by Land Acquisition Collector is still lying with them. He submits that writ petition bearing No.20691 of 2014 by taking the benefit of provision of Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is stated to be pending in this Court. Since as per the reply possession continues to vest with the petitioner, petitioner is hopeful of succeeding in the aforementioned writ petition. In the absence of any proceedings, mutation could not have been effected, thus, mutation qua land of the petitioner is liable to be set aside.