Surjan Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

Surya Kant, J.—Notice of motion.

On our asking, Ms. Palika Monga, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

Let four copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State Counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek counter-reply from the respondents at this stage.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the acquisition of his land fully described in para No. 2 of the writ petition. The acquisition was made vide notifications dated 15.01.2008 (Annexure P-2) and 14.01.2009 (Annexure P-5) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1895 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the public purpose of development of Sector 21 and 22 part, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

It appears that the petitioner in his objections submitted u/s 5-A of the Act requested the respondent-authorities to release his residential house.

Reliance is placed on CWP No. 651 of 1984 (Bharat Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others) pertaining to the same very acquisition, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.07.2013 (Annexure P-9) with certain directions to the respondent-authorities.

In these circumstances, this writ petition is also disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to take a final decision in accordance with law/Government Policy and keeping in view the observations made in the order dated 11.07.2013 passed in Bharat Singh and other''s case (supra). The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Dasti.