- (1.) Seeking quashing of the entire land acquisition process in the light of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and for a direction to the respondents to start fresh acquisition process and to provide the benefits under Section 41 of the 2013 Act, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, for acquisition of 123.67 acres of land in villageTandwa, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 06.05.2006. The petitioner's father purchased land comprised in Khata No.100, R.S. Plot Nos.400 and 492, measuring 0.56 acre from one Tekni Devi by registered saledeed on 20.06.1973. Similarly, mother of the petitioner purchased 0.051 acre of land from Ashni Devi and Tekni Devi by registered deeds of sale on 08.02.1974. It is stated that the petitioner's parents are in lawful possession over 1.07 acres of land in MouzaNayeparam of P.S.Tandwa and they are paying rent to the State Government. The respondent nos.6 and 7 tampered the record and claimed compensation in respect of the said land belonging to the parents of the petitioner and therefore, on 30.04.2003 a representation was made to the District Land Acquisition Officer. Since, neither the compensation has been paid to the petitioner's parents nor possession of 1.07 acres of land belonging to them has been taken, the petitioner has sought a declaration in terms of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to judgment in "Bimla Devi Vs. State of Haryana, 2014 6 SCC 583" and in "Velaxan Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, 2015 AIR(SCW) 52" and "Union of India & Ors. Vs. Shiv Raj & Others, 2014 6 SCC 564", submits that in view of the mandate under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition with respect to 1.07 acres of land belonging to the petitioner's parents has lapsed. It is further submitted that though the respondents claim to have taken possession of the said land, admittedly no Punchnama was prepared evidencing taking over possession of the said land and therefore, the plea taken by the respondents is liable to be rejected.;