IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.4730 of 2009
Date of decision: 25.3.2009
Dayanand etc.
-----Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present:- Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate
for the petitioners.
-----
ORDER:
1. This petition seeks a mandamus for payment of
compensation with interest for the land which has been utilised for
constructing the Alampur Patodi Minor and for quashing letter dated
29.1.2009, Annexure P-6.
2. Case set out in the petition is that land of the petitioners
was utilised by the State for construction of Alampur Patodi Minor in
the year 1986. On 5.8.2008, the petitioners served Legal Notice,
which has been replied vide letter dated 29.1.2009, stating that the
work of construction of canal was started in the year 1986 and after
point at RD 6500, the same was shifted to another place. The land
beyond RD 6500 which belonged to the petitioners, was not required.
Compensation was paid for land upto RD 6500, but the State did not
require the land beyond RD 6500 and therefore, it was not
considered necessary to acquire the said land.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
C.W.P. No.4730 of 2009
2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
possession of land of the petitioner was taken in the year 1986 and
the land was utilised, though the same was not being now used by
the State. The petitioners have suffered loss and therefore, a
direction be issued for acquiring the land and for payment of
compensation.
5. As regards the alleged action of taking possession of the
land of the petitioners in the year 1986, we are of the view that the
issue cannot be gone into, at this stage, after 23 years, particularly
when the land is no longer in possession of the State nor needed by
the State and the petitioners slept over the matter for such a long
period.
6. As regards direction for acquisition, we are unable to hold
that there is any legal right to seek such a relief.
7. Only issue that survives is whether the petitioners are
entitled to compensation for any damage by any action of the State.
This issue will require adjudication of disputed facts, for which this
petition is not the appropriate remedy. If the petitioners are so
aggrieved, they will be at liberty to take their remedies in accordance
with law.
8. The petition is disposed of.
( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )
JUDGE
March 25, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN )
ashwani JUDGE