GURDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to determine the market value of the land acquired on behalf of Municipal Committee, Thanesar, under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (in short the Act) with further direction to respondent No. 3 to make payment in respect of land acquired.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No. 3 framed and adopted Town Planning Scheme No.7-B in the area of village Darra Kalan, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, which was sanctioned and notified by respondent No.l vide notification dated 13.11.1990 under Section 203 of the Act. The land of the petitioners fell in the said Town Planning Scheme No.7-B. It is further their case that out of total land measuring 114 kanals 2 marlas, 35.94 per cent land has been transferred to the Municipal Committee, in Town Planning Scheme. It is contended that since the land in excess of 25 per cent has been transferred, the petitioners are entitled to the compensation in regard to the land which was in excess of 25 per cent of the total land covered under Town Planning Scheme No.7-B. Petitioners have further stated that the action of the respondents in taking land of the petitioners without any compensation is clearly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India as well as provisions of the Act.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, Shri T.V.S.N. Prasad, Deputy Commissioner, has admitted that the total area of petitioners 1 and 3 falling in Town Planning Scheme No.7-B was 114 Kanals 2 Marlas. He has further stated that possession of the land was given to the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board on 31.8.1992 following the adoption of the Town Planning Scheme for the construction of road. He has submitted that the respondents are pursuing the matter with the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board so that compensation is paid to the landowners. Respondent No. 2 has also admitted that petitioners have been making representations to the respondents for making the payment of compensation to them, that the amount has not been paid till date by the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board. He has further stated that he is pursuing the matter with respondent No. 1 and the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board so that compensation could be paid to the petitioners.