Decided on February 19,2019



S. Murlidhar, J. - (1.)The prayers in the present petition read as under:
"(i) A writ of Mandamus by declaring the Award No. 20/2005 06/DC (NW)dated 18.11.2005 lapsed qua the Khasra No. 7 of petitioner interms of section 24 (2) of Act 2013 as neither the compensation hasbeen paid to the petitioner nor possession has been takenover of the subject land;

(ii) A writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order No. F. LAC (NW)/UER-11/2018/ 1020-1025 dated 10-09-2018 qua the Khasra No. 7 total area comes to 13 Bighas 09 Biswa.

(iii) A writ of prohibition for restraining the respondent not to carry outfurther demolition and take possession of land without the sanctityof law;

(iv) A writ of Mandamus by declaring the Khasra No. 7 of the petitioner as private land in terms of notification No. F.No. 1- 33/UC/UD/Policy/2007/20670-20686 dated 12-12-07;.

(v) And/or pass any other writ/ order/ direction as the Honourable courtdeem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

(2.)The admitted facts are that the notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA) was issued on 21st March 2003 followed by declaration under Sec. 6 LAA on 19th March 2004.The impugned Award No. 20/ 2005-06/DC was passed on 18th Nov. 2005. The case of the Petitioner is that he has not received any compensation and still remains in possession of the land in question and therefore is entitled to the relief under Sec. 24 (2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act").
(3.)In the petition it is stated that on 20th Sept. 2018, the Respondent without issuing any notice to the Petitioner, demolished the boundary wall as well as the constructed built-up area which had 17 rooms. Photos of the allegedly demolished property have been enclosed along with the petition.This was in furtherance of the impugned order dated 10th Sept. 2018, by which the subject land was transferred to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) "for the Development of NH-344 (UER-II)". The same order has been relied upon to contend that the possession of the land was not taken and continued to vest with the Petitioner. Although in the prayer clause the Petitioner appears to be claiming relief in relation to a total area of 13 bighas and 9 biswa of land, in para 14, his grievance is that the Respondents took forcible possession of land admeasuring 6 bigha and 1 biswa. This contradiction, though pointed out during the course of hearing, has not explained by the counsel for the Petitioner.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.