Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Mahender Singh Rathee v. State Of Haryana And Others

Mahender Singh Rathee v. State Of Haryana And Others

(High Court Of Punjab And Haryana)

CWP-7268-2022 | 25-04-2022

Ritu Bahri, J.

1. The petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to execute a registered exchange deed in favour of the petitioner for the equivalent land comprised in Killa No. 11//17/1, Village Badkhalsa, Tehsil and District Sonipat, measuring 1K-0M in total out of which 0K-15M land had been offered to him in lieu of the land acquired by the respondents pursuant to the acquisition proceedings commenced on dated 17.11.2005 in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in CWP-27440-2016 dated 30.11.2017 (Annexure P-1) and subsequently in COCP-3436-2018 dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-4), after carrying out proper demarcation without insisting upon the payment of stamp duty/registration fees by the petitioner as the same were to be borne by respondent No.6-HSIIDC in terms of decision dated 26.12.2017 and in parity with other similarly situated land owners such as the petitioner including Smt. Bharpai w/o Late Surajmal.

2. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate appearing for respondent No.6-HSIIDC informs the Court that a sum of Rs.8,68,302/- has been deposited in the account of respondent No.4-Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikarn on account of stamp duty/registration fees.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to letter dated 11.03.2020 (Annexure P-11) whereby the Estate Officer, HSVP, Sonipat had written to the Managing Director, HSIIDC, Panchkula regarding payment of stamp duty for execution of Exchange Deed as per COCP-3436-2018 in which the account details of HSVP alongwith the amount had been mentioned.

4. Since an amount of Rs.8,68,302/- has been deposited in the account of respondent No.4-Haryana Shahri Vikas Pradhikarn on account of stamp duty/registration fees, no further order is required to be passed. It is however observed that in future, if any fresh calculation is done, the same will be borne by respondent No.6 and will be adjusted by respondent No.4. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 are bound by demarcation report dated 30.01.2020 (Annexure P-8). The possession of the plot will be given by respondent No.4 after doing demarcation. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months.

5. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.

Advocate List

  • Mr. Sunish Bindlish, Advocate for the petitioner.

  • Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl.A.G., Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, A.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate with Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for respondent No.6-HSIIDC.

Bench
  • HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
  • HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Eq Citations
  • NON REPORTABLE
  • LQ/PunjHC/2022/13125
Head Note

Constitution — Art 226 — Exercise of power — Writ petition — Disposal of — Relief — Parity with other similarly situated land owners — Stamp duty/registration fees — Held, since an amount of Rs868302 had been deposited in the account of respondent No. 4 on account of stamp duty/registration fees, no further order was required to be passed — However, in future if any fresh calculation was done, the same would be borne by respondent No. 6 and would be adjusted by respondent No. 4 — Both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were bound by demarcation report dated 30.01.2020 — Possession of the plot would be given by respondent No. 4 after doing demarcation — Said exercise to be completed within a period of three months — Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 11-A — Stamp Act, 1899 — Stamp duty/registration fees