High court orders status quo on land acquisition in Gurgaon | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
May 26, 2017-Friday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

High court orders status quo on land acquisition in Gurgaon

Taking up a bunch of petitions filed by the aggrieved persons whose land had been proposed to be acquired by Haryana government at Sai Kunj, New Palam Vihar, Phase-III, Gurgaon, the Punjab and Haryana high court has issued notice of motion to the state alongwith the directions to maintain status quo on land acquisition.

chandigarh Updated: Jun 24, 2011 17:55 IST
Sanjeev Verma

Taking up a bunch of petitions filed by the aggrieved persons whose land had been proposed to be acquired by Haryana government at Sai Kunj, New Palam Vihar, Phase-III, Gurgaon, the Punjab and Haryana high court has issued notice of motion to the state alongwith the directions to maintain status quo on land acquisition.

The directions came from the vacation bench of justice Hemant Gupta and justice Ritu Bahri after around 11 petitioners including one Sehdev Singh of Sai Kunj moved the high court. The state has been directed to file its reply before July 20.

Petitioners’ land had become subject of compulsory acquisition proceedings by the government under “public purpose” for development of the land for residential sector 110-A, Gurgaon for rehabilitation of families. The families who were to be rehabilitated on petitioners’ land were those whose houses would come under the road alignment and green belt area in Gurgaon as per the development plan by the Haryana Urban Development Authority(HUDA).

It was asserted that the government was trying to acquire petitioners’ land on which residential-cum-commercial construction stand raised, which was unjust. Petitioner made the submission that constructions of the petitioners were situated by the side of main Gurgaon Choma road also known as PWD road.

It was submitted that around eight acres of land which was subject to acquisition had residential and commercial construction on it and around 30 acres of land was vacant.

The bench was informed that the petitioners had filed their objections to the concerned authorities earlier stating that their land cannot be acquired by the state for rehabilitation/resettlement of other residents by uprooting their residential/commercial properties.

The petitioners had sought directions from the high court for quashing of the notifications dated December 21, 2009 and December 17 last year issued under sections 4 and 6 of the land acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of petitioners’ land.