Ram Nath And Others vs D.C.Dhesi And Anr on 5 August, 2009

COCP No.1083 of 2009                                                1


      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                            C.O.C.P.No.1083 of 2009
                                            Date of Decision:-5.8.2009


Ram Nath and others
                                                        ...Petitioners
                                     Versus

D.C.Dhesi and anr.                                     ...Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

Present: Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr.M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with
Mr.Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
with respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral):

The grievance of the petitioners in this case is that inspite

of the fact that the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the

petitioners were quashed vide judgment dated 29.7.2008 passed by

this Court in CWP No.12146 of 2008 and it was held that the

petitioners were liable to refund the amount of compensation

received by them alongwith interest, the respondents have refused to

accept the same on the ground that they have already challenged the

aforesaid judgment by filing an SLP.

In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court

separate replies have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2

by way of short affidavit wherein it has been submitted that the

petitioners were required to deposit the amount of compensation as

received by them alongwith interest at the rate as mentioned in the
COCP No.1083 of 2009 2

aforesaid judgment. The respondents have never refused to accept

the same and in fact the petitioners have not approached the office

of respondent No.1 to deposit the amount.

Shri Ashok Jindal, learned Assistant Advocate General,

Haryana on instructions from D.S.Dhesi-respondent No.1, who is

present in Court, states that in case the petitioners approach the

office of respondent No.2 alongwith the requisite amount as per the

order passed by this Court in CWP No.12146 of 2008, the same will

be accepted by the respondents, subject to the decision of the SLP

filed by them against the judgment of this Court passed in the

aforesaid CWP.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the present

petition be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioners to

approach the respondents to pay/deposit the amount as per the

judgment of this Court.

With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is dismissed as not

pressed.

It is needless to say that on receipt of the aforesaid

amount, the respondents shall pass an appropriate order to

release/restore the land to the petitioners.

5.8.2009                                       (Rakesh Kumar Garg)
AS                                                      Judge