Punjab-Haryana High Court
Randhir vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 May, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067359-DB
CWP-10499-2024 &
other connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-10499-2024
Date of decision: 14.05.2024
Randhir ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
2) CWP-10510-2024
Krishan Lal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
3) CWP-10515-2024
Kirpal ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
4) CWP-10812-2024
Rohtash ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate,
for the respondent-HSVP.
****
ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral)
For, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the
matter in issue in this bunch of four petitions is identical, these are being
disposed of by a common order and judgment. However, the facts are
being derived from CWP No.10499-2024.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067359-DB
CWP-10499-2024 &
other connected cases -2-
On May 07, 2024, this Court had passed the following
order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner(s), in
reference to the report submitted by the Screening
Committee (page 153 of the paper book), submits that land
measuring 4 bigha, 8 biswa, 15 biswasi, reflected in
column No.11 of the table, was the joint holding of the
petitioner and his three brothers. And since individually,
petitioner was the absolute owner of the area measuring 1
bigha, 7 biswa, 4 biswasi, and his entire land holding was
acquired, he is entitled to an allotment of a suitable site,
being an oustee. Therefore, he submits that the reasons
assigned by the respondents to reject the claim of the
petitioner(s) are apparently erroneous and unsustainable.
Faced with this, Mr. Deepak Sabherwal,
Advocate, who is present in Court on behalf of the
respondent-HSVP, upon being served with the advance
copies of the petitions, prays for a short accommodation to
seek instructions and/or submit a necessary affidavit(s), in
the regard.
Adjourned to 14.05.2024.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the
files of connected cases."
In response thereto, learned counsel for the respondent-
HSVP has filed an affidavit dated 13.05.2024, of the Estate Officer,
HSVP, Karnal, today in Court and the same is taken on record. Copy
furnished. And, paragraph Nos.8 and 9 thereof, read as thus:-
"8. That it is submitted that after receipt of the ibid
order of this Hon'ble Court, the matter is also taken up
with Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estates, Panchkula.
The official of the said office has brought to the notice the
award statement prepared of the acquired Khasra Numbers
involved in the case and it has been informed that father of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067359-DB
CWP-10499-2024 &
other connected cases -3-
the petitioner namely, Man Singh and one Ram Singh both
sons of Jhandu are recorded as gair marusi in khana
khasht without any share and they were not recorded as
owners of the land. It is also brought to notice that due to
this reason, the matter has been sent to the court of
learned District Judge under section 18/30 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 along with bank draft number
254791 dated 05.10.2006 and vide bank draft number
243969 dated 24.11.2006 in case of Jai Singh etc. It is also
pertinent to state that Khasra Number 7253 min. claimed
by the petitioner is not a part of the awarded land of which
award statement is prepared by Land Acquisition Officer,
Urban Estate, Panchkula. The said facts are not appearing
in earlier reports received from Tehsildar, Karnal and
Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estates, Haryana,
Panchkula on basis of which screening committee decided
the claim of the petitioner. These facts have also not been
disclosed by the present petition (s) in his application or
even in present writ petition.
9. That in these circumstances, the answering
respondent will review the matter as per the record sought
from the revenue authorities/administration and the
answering respondent will also give a hearing to the
petitioner."
With reference to the averments set out in paragraph Nos. 8
and 9, as extracted above, learned counsel for the parties have reached a
consensus: the competent authority shall examine the matter in issue in
its entirety and decide the same afresh by passing necessary orders, in
accordance with law. Further, before any such orders are passed, the
petitioners shall be heard, for which a formal communication shall be
issued, well in advance. It is also agreed that the petitioners shall be at
liberty to furnish any fresh material/documents to supplement/support
their claims, provided the same are submitted within a week from today.
Which shall be taken into account, while passing the final orders by the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067359-DB
CWP-10499-2024 &
other connected cases -4-
competent authority, as indicated above. And, in the given circumstances,
the impugned order/communication dated 22.11.2023 (P-20), be deemed
to have been recalled/withdrawn. Further, for the petitioners claim to be
oustees and have been pursuing the matter with the respondent authorities
for quite some time for allotment of suitable site/plot(s), the necessary
orders, as indicated earlier, shall be passed within a period of four weeks
from today.
In the wake of the position sketched out above and the
consensus that has been arrived at between the learned counsel for the
parties, the petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.
This Court is sanguine that the authorities shall look into the
matter in the right earnest. And a comprehensive order, citing reasons in
support thereof, shall be passed, within the time indicated by learned
counsel for the respondent-HSVP.
Needless to assert that this order shall not constitute an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case of either party, for, as
indicated earlier, the competent authority shall examine the grievances of
the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law.
(ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
14.05.2024
Ak Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
