Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 337 (PNJ)

Sushil Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-14

AJAY TEWARI, M.M.KUMAR

body2010
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. It is conceded by the learned state counsel by referring to letter dated 13.01.2010, wherein Land Acquisition officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula has submitted that the subject matter of this petition pertains to the same notifications which were challenged in CWP No.10570 of 2006 titled as Hari Dass dutt and others vs. State of Haryana and others and other bunch of petitions. Those notifications were quashed by this Court in the judgement dated 18.02.2008 (Annexure P-4 ). A copy of this letter is taken on record as Mark a. 2. In respect of the judgment dated 18.02.2008, it is significant to notice that a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (M. M. Kumar, J.) was member, had allowed the bunch of petitions. It was held that notification under Sec.6 of the act had been issued after expiry of more than one year which violated Sec.6 proviso (ii) of the Act. It went on to observe: "in the present case notification under Sec.4 of the Act was issued on 23.05.2001 (Annexure P-2) and notification under Sec.6 read with Sec.17 of the Act was issued a day later on 24.05.2001 (Annexure P-3 ). The petitioner filed CWP No.13391 of 2001. The Division Bench vide its order dated 08.07.2002 (Annexure P-6) set aside the invoking of urgency provisions and declaration issued under Sec.6 read with Sec.17 of the Act. As a consequence the petitioners were given the right to file objections under section 5-A of the Act. They filed objections which were accordingly decided on 06.09.2002. Thereafter, declaration under Sec.6 of the Act has been issued on 06.05.2004 which apparently is far beyond the period of one year from the date of notification issued under Sec.4 of the Act. By no stretch of imagination the declaration issued on 06.05.2004 (Annexure P-8) under Sec.6 of the Act could stand judicial scrutiny. The right of the petitioners would be prejudiced because they would get the price of the land assessed on the date when notification under Sec.4 of the Act was issued on 23.05.2001 whereas the petitioners would be entitled to the assessment of their land from the proceedings to the issuance of declaration under Sec.6 of the Act which is this case would be 06.05.2003. Likewise, the amount of interest and solatium would also adversely affect the interest of the petitioners whose land has been acquired. Likewise, the amount of interest and solatium would also adversely affect the interest of the petitioners whose land has been acquired. There is thus, flagrant violation of the provision of Sec.6 proviso (ii) of the Act. Notification under Sec.6 dated 23.05.2001 (Annexure p-3) and declaration under Sec.6 of the Act dated 06.05.2004 (Anneuxre P-8)are liable to be quashed. " 3. Thereafter in respect of same notifications another petition CWP No.18225 of 2008 was also filed where another division Bench, of which one of us (M. M. Kumar, J.) was member, had followed the earlier view and quashed the notifications vide order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-7 ). However, a condition was added that the petitioners have to refund the amount of compensation received by those petitions alongwith statutory interest at the rate of 9% interest for the first year and 15% thereafter. In view of the aforesaid factual situation, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms as in CWP No.10570 of 2006 decided on 18.02.2008. However, the petitioner shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of order dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-7 ).