Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Notice of motion to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 only.
On our asking, Mr. R.D Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, accepts notice on their behalf.
Let two copies of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State Counsel during the course of day failing which this order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.
In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, neither respondent No. 3 is required to be served nor any counter-reply from respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is needed at this stage.
The petitioner challenges the notifications dated 23.08.2007 (Annexure P-1) and 21.08.2008 (Annexure P-3) issued under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively, qua the acquisition of his land fully descripted in para No. 2 of the writ petition, comprising a residential house, situated within the revenue estate of village Safidon, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind.
Since we have already quashed the impugned notifications qua the writ petitioners in CWP No. 18678 of 2011 (Shiv Kumar v. The State of Haryana) and other connected cases for the reasons assigned in the order dated 10.07.2013 which the petitioner has relied upon, we dispose of this writ petition without expressing any views on merits of the petitioner's claim, with a direction to the respondents to consider his claim for the release of acquired property, in accordance with the Government policy and in the light of reasons assigned in Shiv Kumar case (supra) and pass an appropriate order within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.
Till the speaking order is passed by the respondents, both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo regarding possession and further construction.
Dasti.