Whether HC While Exercising Writ Jurisdiction In Respect Of One Land Owner Can Issue General Directions Applicable To All Execution Cases? Supreme Court To Examine

The Supreme Court recently agreed to examine as to whether the High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of one landowner can issue general directions applicable to all the execution cases pending in the State of Haryana.The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath agreed to examine the questions while considering SLP assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order dated February 14, 2022.In the impugned order, the High Court was considering a writ petition filed by one of the land owners seeking release of the amount of compensation towards acquisition of his land by the respondents.The High Court to adjudicate on the issue had considered that the State of Haryana and Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran had devised a plan to deal with the claims for release of the amount of compensation in different proceedings including execution cases. The so called plan which was propounded before the High Court by the Chief Administrator, HSVP carried the propositions of extended payment schedules, with proposed dates of compliance extending to 15th August 2022, 15th October 2022 and 31st December 2022.After taking note of the plan for release of the amount of compensation, the High Court had restrained all the Executing Courts in the State of Haryana from taking coercive steps; and had further directed the Reference Court to accept the amount of compensation as per the proposed plan of the respondents.Aggrieved with the High Court's order, the petitioner (M/S Shivanand Real Estate Pvt. Ltd.) had approached Top Court. It was submitted by the petitioner that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of one land owner, the High Court was not justified in issuing general directions applicable to all the execution cases pending in the State of Haryana. It was also submitted that the petitioner was not a party to the said writ petition and the High Court was not justified in issuing impugned directions without extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.The petitioner had further submitted that as regards its claim for release of the amount of compensation, the petitioner had preferred a separate writ petition. In the said writ, the High Court after recording State's statement that the matter was being referred to Court u/s 30 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and that the amount assessed would be deposited with the Reference Court had given the petitioner liberty to withdraw the plea.With regards to the same, the petitioner submitted before the Top Court that because of inaction of the respondent, petitioner had moved the High Court in contempt proceedings wherein, notices have been issued for April 6, 2022.Remarking that the matter required consideration, the Top Court while issuing notice to the respondents also stayed High Court's order dated February 14, 2022 qua the petitioner."Looking to the nature and purport of the impugned order dated 14.02.2022, the matter requires consideration. Issue notice to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, returnable in two weeks. Service in relation to the respondent No. 5 (proforma respondent) is dispensed with. In the meanwhile and until further orders, operation and effect of the impugned order dated 14.02.2022 in CWP No. 20384 of 2021 shall remain stayed qua the petitioner; and the proceedings taken up by the petitioner in relation to the amount of compensation, including those in Contempt Petition bearing No. 15 of 2022, shall continue without at all being affected by the directions issued in the order impugned or any observation made therein," bench said in its order.The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath also issued notice in the SLP assailing Punjab and Haryana High Court's order in which the High Court based on the plan had issued general directions restraining all the Executing Courts in the State of Haryana from taking coercive steps.The petitioner had submitted that the High Court had issued such directions without taking note of the hardships faced by the land owners whose land had been acquired and who were being deprived of the awarded amount of compensation. It was also submitted that the High Court had given no reason whatsoever for accepting the proposed plan, which was essentially of delayed and staggered payment schedules."This matter too requires consideration. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable in two weeks. In the meanwhile and until further orders, operation and effect of the impugned order dated 14.02.2022 in CWP No. 20384 of 2021 shall remain stayed qua the petitioner; and the petitioner shall be free to adopt necessary proceedings for recovery of the amount of compensation, as permissible in law," the Top Court had said in its order.Case Title: M/S Shivanand Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Haryana & Ors.| Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6227/2022Click Here To Read/Download Order

Whether HC While Exercising Writ Jurisdiction In Respect Of One Land Owner Can Issue General Directions Applicable To All Execution Cases? Supreme Court To Examine

Shruti Kakkar

Tags