Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12695 of 2014 Date of Decision: July 04, 2014 Ashu Jain and others .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL.
Present : Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.-.- 1.
Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.
2.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
3.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.
--- Surya Kant, J.
(Oral) The petitioners impugn the order of eviction dated 26.06.2014 (Annexure P-9) purportedly passed under Section 18(1) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (for short, the HUDA Act).in respect of Baba Khetanath Complex, Sector-1, Narnaul.
The impugned order alleges that the building in question has been constructed on the HUDA land thereby affecting lying of 18 meter wide road and sewerage.
It is averred that sufficient opportunities to remove the unauthorized construction have been given in the past but the petitioners having failed to do so, the eviction order has been passed.
The case of the petitioners on the other hand appears to be that 0.24 acres land situated within the revenue estate of Narnaul, was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 07.05.2002 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.07 14:47 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.12695 of 2014 [2].1894 (hereinafter referred to as '1894 Act').The said acquisition was challenged by the erstwhile owners of the land before this Court in CWP No.15249 of 2002 (Gaurishankar and another versus State of Haryana and others).The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2004 on the statement made by State counsel that “every endeavour shall be made so as not to acquire constructed portion of the factory and if at all it becomes absolutely necessary to acquire the same, it would be so done only for laying down sewerage and road”.The petitioners who are subsequent purchasers claim that the factory land was never acquired and no award in relation thereto has been passed.
This very precise stand has been taken by them in the reply to show cause notice(s) issued under Section 17 of the HUDA Act.
It is claimed that without considering their reply to the show cause notice(s).the impugned eviction order has been passed.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record.
It is apparent from the impugned order as well as the contents of other documents on record that the Commercial Complex has been constructed on the HUDA land, i.e., the acquired land and not where the factory was earlier located.
Be that as it may, it being a disputed question of fact which can be resolved by way of demarcation of the released/unacquired land viz-a-viz acquired land, the appropriate recouRs.for the petitioners is to approach the revenue authorities and seek re-demarcation of the un- acquired land and if it is found that the building has been raised un-authorizedly on the acquired land, the law must Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.07 14:47 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP No.12695 of 2014 [3].take its own course.
However, if the factory is found on the property which is yet to be acquired, the authorities shall take further action strictly in accordance with law.
With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Let a copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioners under the signature of the Bench Secretary.
[SURYA KANT].JUDGE July 04, 2014 [LISA GILL].Mohinder JUDGE Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.07 14:47 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh